Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02417/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02417-9/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN DURRELL HOLCOMB,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-02-2417 LKK KJM P

vs.

HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

 Plaintiff is a prison inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil

rights action. Plaintiff has filed his fourth 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 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.

/////

/////

Case 2:02-cv-02417-LKK -EFB Document 67 Filed 02/07/07 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

Plaintiff has also filed a motion titled “motion for nunc pro tunc hearing motion.” 

Plaintiff does not ask for anything in the motion. Rather, plaintiff recounts difficulties he has

had with discovery. This “motion” will be denied.

Plaintiff has filed a document titled “request leave to file freedom of information

act request per documents.” Plaintiff has not indicated to the court, nor is it otherwise apparent,

why plaintiff needs a court order to make a request for information under any freedom of

information act. His request will be denied. 

Plaintiff has filed a motion to compel discovery. Discovery has been closed since

January 28, 2005. Plaintiff’s request will be denied. See August 6, 2004 Scheduling Order. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s January 29, 2007 motion for the appointment of counsel is denied.

2. Plaintiff’s January 29, 2007 “motion for nunc pro tunc hearing motion” is

denied.

3. Plaintiff’s January 29, 2007 “request leave to file freedom of information act

request per documents” is denied.

4. Plaintiff’s January 29, 2007 motion to compel is denied.

DATED: February 6, 2007. 

1/mp

holc2417.31.3

Case 2:02-cv-02417-LKK -EFB Document 67 Filed 02/07/07 Page 2 of 2