Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05595/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05595-32/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

ANDREW LOPEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

A.K. SCRIBNER,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:04-5595 OWW-DLB-P

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR STAY

Telephonic Trial Confirmation 

Hearing: March 28, 2008, at 11:00 a.m. in

Courtroom 9 (DLB)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims

against defendant Yale (“defendant”). A telephonic trial confirmation hearing is currently set for

March 28, 2008 at 11:00 A.M. in Courtroom 9 before Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck.

On February 27, 2008, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the court’s orders denying his

motions for the appointment of counsel, as well as a request to stay this action pending resolution

of his appeal.

This court is mindful that plaintiff requests a stay of proceedings so that he may proceed with

his appeal to obtain the assistance of counsel in this action, and in the telephonic trial confirmation

hearing. However, as plaintiff is well aware, 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, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814,

Case 1:04-cv-05595-DLB Document 205 Filed 03/17/08 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

1816 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance

of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9 Cir. th

1997). Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, this court will seek

volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases.

“When a Notice of Appeal is defective in that it refers to a non-appealable interlocutory

order, it does not transfer jurisdiction to the appellate court, and so the ordinary rule that the district

court cannot act until the mandate has issued on the appeal does not apply.” Nascimento v. Dummer,

508 F.3d 905, 908 (9th Cir. 2007). In this instance, plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel

is not immediately appealable, Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1330 (9th Cir. 1986). 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for a stay of this action pending resolution of his appeal is

HEREBY DENIED, and the telephonic trial confirmation hearing set for March 28, 2008 will

proceed as scheduled.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 14, 2008 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05595-DLB Document 205 Filed 03/17/08 Page 2 of 2