Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00797/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00797-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEO LERMA, 1:05-CV-0797 OWW WMW P

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL,

vs. INVESTIGATOR, AND EXPERTS

J. GONZALES, et al., [Doc. 8, 9]

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, Leo Lerma, (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 12 and 26, 2005, plaintiff filed

motions seeking the appointment of counsel, an investigator and experts.

With respect to plaintiff’s motion for the 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 District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 109

S.Ct. 1814 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance

of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Without a reasonable method of securing and

compensating counsel, this court will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional

cases.

///

In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even if it is

Case 1:05-cv-00797-LJO -WMW Document 10 Filed 10/07/05 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

2

assumed that plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations which, if

proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This court is faced with similar cases

almost daily. Therefore, plaintiff's request for the appointment of counsel must be denied.

With respect to plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of an investigator and experts, the

expenditure of public funds on behalf of an indigent litigant is proper onlywhen authorized by Congress.

See Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210 (9th Cir. 1989) (citations omitted). The in forma pauperis statute does

not authorize the expenditure of public funds for the purpose sought by plaintiff in the instant motion.

In accordance with the above, plaintiff's motions for the appointment of counsel, an investigator,

and experts, filed September 12 and 26, 2005, are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 6, 2005 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

j14hj0 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00797-LJO -WMW Document 10 Filed 10/07/05 Page 2 of 2