Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02550/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02550-1/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

 In the objections, plaintiff also requests appointment of counsel or a sixty day extension 1

of time to seek counsel to represent him in this action. The United States Supreme Court has

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RALPH MICHAEL CERVANTES, No. 2:07-cv-02550-MCE-JFM P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

PLACER COUNTY SUPERIOR

COURTS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On December 19, 2007, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. On December 26, 2007,

plaintiff filed a document styled “Suplemental [sic].” The court construes this document as

objections to the findings and recommendations.

1

Case 2:07-cv-02550-MCE -JFM Document 9 Filed 02/11/08 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

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 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. Moreover, no good cause appears in the record to delay disposition of

these proceedings. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time will also be denied.

2

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304,

this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,

the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper

analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s December 26, 2007 filing is construed in part as objections to the findings

and recommendations filed December 19, 2007;

2. Plaintiff’s December 26, 2007 request for appointment of counsel is denied;

3. Plaintiff’s December 26, 2007 request for extension of time is denied;

4. The findings and recommendations filed December 19, 2007, are adopted in full; and

5. This action is dismissed without prejudice. 

Dated: February 11, 2008

________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-02550-MCE -JFM Document 9 Filed 02/11/08 Page 2 of 2