Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00756/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00756-3/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 Plaintiff’s first motion was denied by order filed June 28, 2005. 1

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN A. MARTIN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0756 LKK JFM P

vs.

CHERYL K. PLILER,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 31, 2005, plaintiff filed his second motion for the appointment of

counsel. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require 1

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

second motion for the appointment of counsel will therefore be denied.

Case 2:04-cv-00756-LKK -JFM Document 39 Filed 09/22/05 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

On September 12, 2005, defendants filed a request for a third extension of time to

serve responses to interrogatories and requests for admissions. In the request, defendants

represent that the responses were to be served on that day. Good cause appearing, the request

will be granted and responses served September 12, 2005 will be deemed timely. 

Finally, on September 21, 2005, defendants filed a request for an extension of

time to file dispositive motions in this matter. Defendants seek an extension of time from

September 23, 2005 to November 7, 2005 to file a dispositive motion. Good cause appearing,

defendants’ request will be granted. No further extensions of time to file such motions will be

granted.

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

1. Plaintiff’s August 31, 2005 motion for the appointment of counsel is denied;

2. Defendants’ September 12, 2005 request for an extension of time is granted;

3. Defendants’ responses to interrogatories and requests for admissions are

deemed timely as served on September 12, 2005;

4. Defendants’ September 21, 2005 request for an extension of time to file a

dispositive motion is granted;

5. The parties are granted until November 7, 2005 to file and serve dispositive

motions and no further extensions of this deadline will be granted.

DATED: September 21, 2005. 

12/kf

mart0756.31a

Case 2:04-cv-00756-LKK -JFM Document 39 Filed 09/22/05 Page 2 of 2