Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00027/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00027-9/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

TONI DEWARD LEVINGSTON, No. CIV S-06-0027-FCD-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

PAUL FREEMAN BONNET, 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 is plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel

(Doc. 28), filed on December 28, 2006.

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. 

Case 2:06-cv-00027-FCD-CMK Document 29 Filed 01/03/07 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

In his request for counsel, plaintiff also seeks an extension of the deadlines set in

the scheduling order issued on December 7, 2006. Plaintiff does not, however, specify which

portions of the order he would like to have modified. Nor does plaintiff suggest new deadlines. 

Therefore, the request for an extension of the deadlines imposed by the scheduling order will be

denied.

 It appears that plaintiff is confused about the meaning of the scheduling and

discovery orders issued by the court. Plaintiff is advised that the discovery order is intended to

set forth the rules governing discovery in civil cases. There are no deadlines associated with the

discovery order. The scheduling order specifies that discovery may be conducted until March

30, 2007. If plaintiff wishes to file a pre-trial motion (other than for discovery), such motions

must be filed by May 25, 2007. Finally, plaintiff is required to file a pre-trial statement, along

with requests for any incarcerated witnesses to attend trial, by August 24, 2007. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel is denied; and

2.. Plaintiff’s request for modification of the scheduling order is denied. 

DATED: January 3, 2007.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00027-FCD-CMK Document 29 Filed 01/03/07 Page 2 of 2