Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01346/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01346-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT SCOTT SPENCER, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-1346 FCD DAD P

vs.

N. NOBEL, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff’s complaint was received for filing on June 19, 2006. Although the

complaint bears a Palmdale residential address, plaintiff’s proof of service provides a prison

address, and his in forma pauperis application was submitted on a prisoner form. The prison

address was entered on the docket as plaintiff’s address of record. Court records reveal that

plaintiff filed a change of address on July 24, 2006, reporting a change of address on July 6,

2006, from Solano State Prison to Palmdale. The change of address notice was captioned for

filing only in Spencer v. Briddle, case No. CIV S-06-0272 FCD KJM P. The case opening

documents sent to plaintiff notified him of his obligation to keep the court apprised of a current

address at all times. A notice of change of address must be filed in each open case.

A review of plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application reveals that the application

was certified by a prison official on January 26, 2006. The attached prison trust account

Case 2:06-cv-01346-FCD-DAD Document 6 Filed 01/25/07 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

2

statement covers the period of July 1, 2005, through January 25, 2006. Plaintiff’s application

was six months out-of-date when it was filed, and plaintiff’s custody status changed soon

thereafter. The court will provide plaintiff with a non-prisoner application form and will grant

plaintiff thirty days to complete and file the form if he wishes to proceed with this action.

Plaintiff also filed a motion for appointment of counsel. The United States

Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent

indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298

(1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of

counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir.

1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). The court does not find

the required exceptional circumstances in this case. Plaintiff’s motion will therefore be denied.

Plaintiff is informed that a document mailed to the court for filing must be placed

in the mail so that it arrives on or before the due date.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s June 19, 2006 application to proceed in forma pauperis (#2) is

denied without prejudice;

2. Plaintiff’s June 19, 2006 motion for appointment of counsel (#3) is denied;

3. The Clerk of the Court shall provide plaintiff with a copy of the in forma

pauperis application to be used by a non-prisoner in a civil action; and

4. Plaintiff shall file, within thirty days from the date of this order, an in forma

pauperis application on the form provided with this order; plaintiff’s failure to comply with this

order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed without prejudice.

DATED: January 25, 2007.

DAD:13

spen1346.3+31

Case 2:06-cv-01346-FCD-DAD Document 6 Filed 01/25/07 Page 2 of 2