Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00476/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00476-16/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

WILLIAM THOMAS COATS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-08-0476 JAM GGH P

vs.

CARLOS CABRERRA, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

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

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s pretrial statement is due on April 9, 2010. The jury trial is set for

June 21, 2010.

On March 17, 2010, 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 request for the

appointment of counsel will therefore be denied.

Case 2:08-cv-00476-JAM-GGH Document 103 Filed 03/25/10 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

On March 17, 2010, plaintiff also filed a motion for extension of time to file his

pretrial statement. Plaintiff alleges that he was interviewed by attorney William Schmidt who

may agree to represent him at the trial if the court is willing to appoint him. As discussed above,

although the court does not find that the required exceptional circumstances exist in this case for

appointment of counsel from the panel, if Mr. Schmidt wants to represent plaintiff the court will

appoint him. In the mean time, plaintiff must still file his pretrial statement by April 9, 2010. 

Accordingly, the motion for extension of time is denied.

On March 17, 2010, plaintiff also filed a motion for further discovery. Discovery

is closed. Plaintiff has not shown good cause to reopen discovery.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (no. 99) is denied;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time (no. 100) is denied;

3. Plaintiff’s motion for further discovery (no. 101) is denied.

DATED: March 25, 2010

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:md

coa476.ord

Case 2:08-cv-00476-JAM-GGH Document 103 Filed 03/25/10 Page 2 of 2