Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01014/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01014-11/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

LARRY ALEXANDER, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-1014 LKK KJM P

vs.

Lt. PLAINER, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil

rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff has requested 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 Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In

certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel

under 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). In the present case, the court does not

find the required exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff’s February 24, 2006 motion for the

appointment of counsel will therefore be denied.

Case 2:03-cv-01014-LKK -KJM Document 91 Filed 05/17/06 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

On March 15, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion to stay the proceedings and for leave

to amend his complaint. Plaintiff’s motion was not, however, accompanied by a proposed

amended complaint. As a litigant proceeding in forma pauperis, plaintiff’s pleadings are subject

to evaluation by this court under the in forma pauperis statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Because

plaintiff did not submit a proposed amended complaint, the court is unable to evaluate it. 

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend must therefore be denied. Moreover, because plaintiff has

requested the stay in order to pursue the amended complaint, it, too, will be denied. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 

1. Plaintiff’s February 24, 2006 motion for the appointment of counsel is denied. 

2. Plaintiff’s March 15, 2006 motion for a stay and for leave to amend is denied.

DATED: May 16, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:03-cv-01014-LKK -KJM Document 91 Filed 05/17/06 Page 2 of 2