Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02277/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02277-11/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

LARRY GIRALDES, No. CIV S-06-2277-MCE-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

ROCHE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court are: (1) plaintiff’s motion for appointment of

counsel (Doc. 57); and (2) plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file a reply brief (Doc.

59).

As to plaintiff’s 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. See 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). See 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

Case 2:06-cv-02277-MCE -CMK Document 60 Filed 12/20/07 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

2

court does not at this time find the required exceptional circumstances. Specifically, plaintiff

states that he requires the assistance of counsel because this case involves “an assessment of the

adequacy of the [medical] treatment given by defendants.” Counsel is not required because

adequacy of medical treatment is not relevant under the Eighth Amendment. See Estelle v.

Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976); see also Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir.

1996).

As to plaintiff’s request for an extension of time, plaintiff states that an extension

is required in order to allow counsel to be appointed. Because counsel is not being appointed,

the extension is not necessary. 

By separate findings and recommendations, the court will rule on the pending

cross-motions for summary judgment.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel (Doc. 57) is denied; and

2. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time (Doc. 59) is denied. 

DATED: December 20, 2007

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-02277-MCE -CMK Document 60 Filed 12/20/07 Page 2 of 2