Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00990/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00990-1/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

1That document was not served on respondents. Petitioner is advised that every document

submitted to the court for consideration must be served on respondents. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5. 

Documents not to be served electronically are usually served by placing a copy in the U.S. mail. 

If an attorney has filed a document with the court on behalf of respondents, then documents

submitted by petitioner must be served on that attorney and not on the respondents themselves. 

Every document submitted conventionally to the court (e.g., by a prisoner proceeding pro se)

must include a certificate stating the date an accurate copy of the document was mailed to

respondents or their attorney and the address to which it was mailed. See Local Rule 5-135(b)

and (c). In future, plaintiff must serve any document for which he seeks consideration by the

court.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BOBBY W. ENDSLEY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0990 FCD GGH P

vs.

YOLO COUNTY SHERIFF’S

DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On July 7, 2005, plaintiff submitted a request for the appointment of counsel.1 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

Case 2:04-cv-00990-FCD-GGH Document 20 Filed 08/05/05 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

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.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s July 7, 2005 request for appointment of counsel is denied; and

2. Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to serve any documents subsequently filed in

this action properly, and failure to include a proper certificate of service with such filing, may

result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

DATED: 8/5/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009/bb

ends0990.35a

Case 2:04-cv-00990-FCD-GGH Document 20 Filed 08/05/05 Page 2 of 2