Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-00549/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-00549-1/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

 Plaintiff’s previous motion, filed June 3, 2005, was denied by order filed November 3, 1

2005.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DORIAN DAVIS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-01-0549 LKK PAN P

vs.

L. GRAVES, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 3, 2005, plaintiff filed a request for a courtappointed investigator. The expenditure of public funds on behalf of an indigent litigant is

proper only when authorized by Congress. Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210 (9th Cir. 1989). The in

forma pauperis statute does not authorize the expenditure of public funds for investigators. See

28 U.S.C. § 1915. Plaintiff’s request for a court-appointed investigator will therefore be denied. 

On December 15, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of counsel. The 1

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,

Case 2:01-cv-00549-LKK-EFB Document 46 Filed 03/01/06 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

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.

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

1. Plaintiff’s June 3, 2005 request for a court-appointed investigator is denied;

and

2. Plaintiff’s December 15, 2005 motion for the appointment of counsel is

denied.

DATED: February 28, 2006. 

12

davi0549.31

Case 2:01-cv-00549-LKK-EFB Document 46 Filed 03/01/06 Page 2 of 2