Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_98-cv-02148/USCOURTS-caed-2_98-cv-02148-1/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

ASKIA S. ASHANTI,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-98-2148 LKK JFM P

vs.

FOLSOM STATE PRISON, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On April 13, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Plaintiff

has filed objections to the findings and recommendations and a 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. Mallard v. United States Dist.

Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the

Case 2:98-cv-02148-LKK -JFM Document 174 Filed 05/25/05 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

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

request for the appointment of counsel will therefore be denied.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

proper analysis. They will therefore be adopted in full. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s April 21, 2005 request for appointment of counsel is denied;

2. The findings and recommendations filed April 13, 2005, are adopted in full;

3. Plaintiff’s August 23, 2004 motion for summary judgment is denied without

prejudice;

4. Plaintiff’s August 23, 2004 and December 16, 2004 motions for preliminary

injunction are denied without prejudice;

5. Defendants’ January 6, 2005 motion to dismiss is granted; and

6. This action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative

remedies prior to suit.

DATED: May 24, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

/asha2148.805

Case 2:98-cv-02148-LKK -JFM Document 174 Filed 05/25/05 Page 2 of 2