Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00034/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00034-3/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

ARTHUR JOHN SOWELL, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

 )

v. ) 

)

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF )

CORRECTIONS, )

)

Defendant. )

____________________________________)

1:06-CV-00034-REC-WMW-P

 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

(DOCUMENT #10)

Plaintiff has requested 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. Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S.

296, 109 S.Ct. 1814 (1989). In certain exceptional 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

Case 1:06-cv-00034-OWW -WMW Document 11 Filed 04/24/06 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

court is faced with similar cases almost daily. Therefore, plaintiff's request for the appointment of

counsel must be denied.

Plaintiff has also requested an extension of time. However, plaintiff did not state

which deadline he wishes to extend, and there are no pending court deadlines in plaintiff’s case. 

Therefore, the extension of time shall be denied without prejudice.

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

1. Plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 24, 2006 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

bl0dc4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00034-OWW -WMW Document 11 Filed 04/24/06 Page 2 of 2