Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01284/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01284-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMISI JERMAINE CALLOWAY,

Plaintiff,

v.

WARDEN CORCORAN STATE PRISON, 

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-cv-01284-LJO-SKO PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION

(Doc. 37)

Plaintiff Jamisi Jermaine Calloway (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 18, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion

requesting appointment of counsel and a conference call with the judge or judges assigned to this

case. (Doc. #37.)

Plaintiff's motion will be denied. Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed

counsel in this action. Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997). The Court cannot

require an attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United

States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). The Court may

request the voluntary assistance of counsel in certain exceptional circumstances pursuant to Section

1915(e)(1). See Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (to decide whether these exceptional circumstances exist,

the Court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the petitioner

to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved). However, the

Court finds the necessary exceptional circumstances do not exist here. Plaintiff has made no attempt

1

Case 1:05-cv-01284-BAM Document 43 Filed 08/11/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

to demonstrate that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim. Further, Plaintiff has been able

to articulate his claims reasonably well and the legal issues in this case are not overly complex.

Plaintiff’s motion also requests a conference call with the judge. Plaintiff fails to identify

any purpose for the conference call. Plaintiff is advised that under the Local Rules, pre-trial issues

are generally resolved bymotion on the record without oral argument. Local Rule 230(l). Plaintiff’s

request for a conference call will be denied.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel

and for a conference call is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 10, 2010 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:05-cv-01284-BAM Document 43 Filed 08/11/10 Page 2 of 2