Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02347/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02347-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARNOLD J. FLEMING,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2347 MCE DAD P

vs.

DR. LINDNER,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

On September 12, 2005, the undersigned issued an order resolving four motions

filed by plaintiff and one motion filed by defendants. Plaintiff has filed two new motions.

First, plaintiff asks the court to reconsider the September 12, 2005 order with

regard to an observation contained in a footnote concerning exhaustion of administrative

remedies. Plaintiff offers argument and evidence on the issue.

Plaintiff is referred to the court’s order filed November 18, 2004. That order sets

forth in detail the requirements for opposing a defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to

exhaust administrative remedies. Defendant has been directed to file a renewed motion to

dismiss, and plaintiff has been directed to file opposition. All of plaintiff’s evidence and

arguments concerning exhaustion must be presented in opposition to defendant’s renewed

motion. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration will be denied.

Case 2:04-cv-02347-MCE -DAD Document 24 Filed 10/03/05 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

2

Second, plaintiff seeks 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). In the present case, the court does not

find the required exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel will

therefore be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s September 27, 2005 motion for reconsideration of the order filed

September 12, 2005, is denied; and

2. Plaintiff’s September 27, 2005 motion for the appointment of counsel is

denied.

DATED: September 30, 2005.

DAD:13

flem2347.31

Case 2:04-cv-02347-MCE -DAD Document 24 Filed 10/03/05 Page 2 of 2