Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01481/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01481-4/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 ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S ACTION - 1

2:05-CV-1481-RRB-GGH P

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

No. 2:05-CV-1481-RRB-GGH P

ORDER

Plaintiff Harold L. Armstrong (“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 November 8, 2006, Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows

filed Findings and Recommendations (Docket No. 25) herein, which

were served on Plaintiff and which contained notice to Plaintiff

that any objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be

filed within twenty days. Plaintiff has filed Objections to the

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations at Docket No. 26,

HAROLD L. ARMSTRONG,

Plaintiff,

vs.

SHASTA COUNTY SHERIFF JIM

POPE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case 2:05-cv-01481-RRB -GGH Document 27 Filed 01/11/07 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

1 Plaintiff’s objections include an eleventh hour request

for appointment of counsel. The United States Supreme Court has

ruled that the district courts lack authority to require counsel to

represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. U.S.

Dist. Court for Southern Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989).

In certain 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; and, therefore, DENIES Plaintiff’s request.

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S ACTION - 2

2:05-CV-1481-RRB-GGH P

which themselves are difficult to read, vague, and non-responsive,

and which do not provide reason to reject the Magistrate Judge’s

findings.1

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, the Court has conducted a de

novo review of the relevant pleadings filed in this matter. Having

carefully and thoroughly reviewed the same, the court finds the

Magistrate’s Findings and Recommendations (Docket No. 25) to be

supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s November 22, 2006, request for the

appointment of counsel is DENIED;

2. The Findings and Recommendations (Docket No. 25)

filed November 8, 2006, are adopted in full; and

3. This action is DISMISSED.

ENTERED this 9th day of January, 2007.

S/RALPH R. BEISTLINE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-01481-RRB -GGH Document 27 Filed 01/11/07 Page 2 of 2