Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00893/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00893-3/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARYL DWIGHT GRAY, 1:07-CV-0893 AWI DLB PC

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF FEDERAL 

vs. INVESTIGATOR

N. GRANNIS, et al.,

[Doc. 7]

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff Daryl Dwight Gray (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 29, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion

seeking the appointment of a federal investigator. 

With respect to plaintiff’s motion for the appointment a federal investigator, the United States

Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel and or investigators 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 and or investigators 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.

///

Case 1:07-cv-00893-AWI-DLB Document 19 Filed 08/03/07 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

27

28

2

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 court is faced with similar cases

almost daily. Therefore, plaintiff's request for the appointment of a federal investigator must be denied.

With respect to plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of an investigator, the expenditure of

public funds on behalf of an indigent litigant is proper only when authorized by Congress. See Tedder

v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210 (9th Cir. 1989) (citations omitted). The in forma pauperis statute does not

authorize the expenditure of public funds for the purpose sought by plaintiff in the instant motion. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for the

appointment of an investigator filed June 19, 2007, is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 3, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3c0hj8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00893-AWI-DLB Document 19 Filed 08/03/07 Page 2 of 2