Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02734/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02734-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

RICHARD C. OREMUS, No. CIV S-09-2734-MCE-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY 

PATROL, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil action. Pending

before the court is plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 14). The United States

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

indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. See 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). See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir.

1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). In the present case, the

court does not at this time find the required exceptional circumstances. 

Plaintiff also appears to raise objections to the undersigned’s screening findings

and recommendations stating he is unsure how to proceed with his claim if not in this court. 

Case 2:09-cv-02734-MCE -CMK Document 15 Filed 08/12/10 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

2

Plaintiff states he is unsure how to proceed based on the undersigned’s findings that his

complaint fails to state a claim for which this court can grant relief. He claims that his state tort

action was improperly denied as untimely. However, bringing a separate action in this court is

not the proper remedy for appealing a state decision. As the undersigned stated in the findings

and recommendations, a request for relief from an untimely state tort action would be better filed

with the state as this court has no power to grant such relief. Plaintiff previously requested and

was granted additional time to file his objections, which are not currently due until August 30,

2010. He therefore may file any objections he has to the undersigned’s findings and

recommendations on or before August 30, 3010.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for the

appointment of counsel (Doc. 14) is denied.

DATED: August 11, 2010

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-02734-MCE -CMK Document 15 Filed 08/12/10 Page 2 of 2