Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00014/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00014-13/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DENNIS MARTEL,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0014 DFL PAN P

vs.

R.L. ANDREASEN, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 13, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion for 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 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 motion for the

appointment of counsel will therefore be denied.

On July 19, 2006, defendants filed a request for an extension of time to complete

discovery on the claims against defendant Baughman, and for an extension of time to file

Case 2:04-cv-00014-ALA Document 58 Filed 07/28/06 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

2

dispositive motions. Pursuant to the scheduling order filed January 27, 2006, discovery was to

be completed by May 26, 2006, and dispositive motions were due by July 21, 2006. The record

reflects that a request for waiver of service of process was sent to defendant Baughman on May

23, 2006, after expiration of time set for completion of discovery, and that his answer to the

amended complaint was timely filed on July 18, 2006. Good cause appearing, defendants’

request will be granted and the court will separately issue a revised scheduling order for this

action. 

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

1. Plaintiff’s July 13, 2006 motion for the appointment of counsel is denied; 

2. Defendants’ July 19, 2006 request for an extension of time is granted; and

3. A revised scheduling order for this action will issue forthwith.

DATED: July 27, 2006.

12/mp

mart0014.31

Case 2:04-cv-00014-ALA Document 58 Filed 07/28/06 Page 2 of 2