Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-06331/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-06331-20/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

27

28 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SCOTT E. STEARNS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

 )

v. ) 

)

E. FLORES, et al., )

 )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

1:00-CV-06331-AWI-LJO-P

APPEAL Cases #06-15310 & #06-15325

 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

(DOCUMENT #375)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. On February 8, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of counsel. Because

the motion was filed concurrently with plaintiff's appeal directed to the Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeals, it is not clear to the district court whether plaintiff intended to request appointment of

counsel at the district court, or appointment of counsel on appeal. If plaintiff's intention was to

request appointment of counsel on appeal, the motion is more properly brought at the court of

appeals, and plaintiff must re-file the motion at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for consideration.

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 District

Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 109 S.Ct. 1814 (1989). In certain exceptional

Case 1:00-cv-06331-DLB Document 392 Filed 03/20/06 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

27

28 2

circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(1). Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, this court will seek

volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In the present case, the court does

not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even if it is assumed that plaintiff is not well

versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to

relief, his case is not exceptional. This court is faced with similar cases almost daily. Therefore,

plaintiff's request for the appointment of counsel must be denied at the district court.

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

1. Plaintiff's request for the appointment of counsel is denied at the district

court;

2. If plaintiff's intent was to request appointment of counsel on appeal, the

motion is more properly brought at the court of appeals, and plaintiff must refile the motion at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for consideration; and

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 20, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b6edp0 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:00-cv-06331-DLB Document 392 Filed 03/20/06 Page 2 of 2