Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01483/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01483-8/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

BENJAMIN ELLIS, No. CIV S-04-1483-LKK-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

ALBONICO, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court are defendants’ motions to dismiss and for

summary judgment (Docs. 45 & 46), both filed on May 15, 2006. On June 30, 2006, plaintiff

filed a document entitled “Notice to the Court in Ex Parte.” In that document, which was not

served on defendants’ counsel, plaintiff recites problems he is having with access to the prison

law library and seeks the appointment of counsel. 

As to plaintiff’s request 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. 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

Case 2:04-cv-01483-LKK -CMK Document 48 Filed 07/14/06 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

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s January 10, 2006, order

1

denying appointment of counsel will be addressed by separate order.

2

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.1

As to plaintiff’s assertions regarding access to the prison law library, in the

interest of justice the court will construe the document as a request for an extension of time to

file a response to defendants’ dispositive motions. So construed, and good cause appearing

therefor, plaintiff will be granted an extension of time.

Finally, in light of the extension of time granted herein, the court will sua sponte

vacate the deadlines for the parties to submit pre-trial statements until further order of the court.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied; 

2. Plaintiff may file responses to defendants’ motions to dismiss and for

summary judgment within 30 days of the date of service of this order; and

3. The deadlines for the parties to file pre-trial statements are vacated

pending further order of the court.

DATED: July 13, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01483-LKK -CMK Document 48 Filed 07/14/06 Page 2 of 2