Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01491/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01491-7/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH MITCHELL, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1491 JAM GGH P

vs.

MARGARITA A. PEREZ, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On July 31, 2006, the Magistrate Judge issued an order denying plaintiff’s July 12,

2006, request for the appointment of counsel. On December 1, 2006, plaintiff filed a request for

reconsideration of that order. Local Rule 72-303(b), states “rulings by Magistrate Judges shall be

final if no reconsideration thereof is sought from the Court within ten court days . . . from the

date of service of the ruling on the parties.” E.D. Local Rule 72-303(b). To the extent that

plaintiff’s request is one for reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s order of July 31 , 2006, it is

untimely.

Alternatively, to the extent that plaintiff simply seeks to renew his request for

appointment of counsel, as plaintiff has been previously informed, 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);

Case 2:05-cv-01491-JAM-GGH Document 34 Filed 08/27/08 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

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, construed as a renewed

motion for the appointment of counsel, will therefore be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. To the extent, plaintiff’s December 1, 2006, request is one for reconsideration

of the July 12, 2006, order denying plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel, it is denied as

untimely;

2. Alternatively, to the extent that plaintiff seeks to renew his request for

appointment of counsel, in his December 1, 2006, filing, his request for appointment of counsel

is denied.

DATED: August 26, 2008

/s/ John A. Mendez 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

/mitc1491.851

Case 2:05-cv-01491-JAM-GGH Document 34 Filed 08/27/08 Page 2 of 2