Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00030/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00030-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
R.J. Ballash
Defendant
Allen Langley
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALLEN LANGLEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

R.J. BALLASH, et al., 

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-30-MJS (PC)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

WITHDRAW REQUEST TO AMEND

COMPLAINT 

(ECF No. 23)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

(ECF No. 18)

Plaintiff Allen Langley (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 8, 2010,

the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend and allowed Plaintiff to file an amended

complaint as he had requested. (ECF No. 22.) Plaintiff now seeks to rescind his request

to amend his complaint and to proceed on his complaint as originally filed. Plaintiff’s

Motion to Withdraw Amended Motion [ECF No. 23] is GRANTED. The Court will proceed

on Plaintiff’s original complaint, filed December 28, 2009. 

Plaintiff has also filed a Motion for Reconsideration asking the Court to reconsider

its denial of his request to have counsel appointed to assist him. The Court has reviewed

both Plaintiff’s original motion and his Motion for Reconsideration and finds that neither set

forth adequate facts to cause this court to seek voluntary counsel to assist Plaintiff. As

Plaintiff has previously been informed, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that

district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983

Case 1:10-cv-00030-GSA Document 24 Filed 07/13/10 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

27

28

-2-

cases. Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S.

296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). This court will seek volunteer counsel only in the

most serious and exceptional cases; the Court does not find the required exceptional

circumstances. See Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997). 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. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for

Reconsideration [ECF No. 18] is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 13, 2010 /s/Michael J. Seng 

ci4d6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00030-GSA Document 24 Filed 07/13/10 Page 2 of 2