(PC) McNutt v. Doe ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRIAN KEITH MCNUTT, No. 2:20-cv-0780 AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 JOHN DOE, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 1. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 Plaintiff has filed a motion for extension of time to file an in forma pauperis application as 21 well as a motion for the appointment of counsel. ECF No. 8. For the reasons stated below, the 22 court will deny both motions. 23 I. MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME 24 Since filing the instant complaint in April 2020, plaintiff has been given three 25 opportunities to file a proper in forma pauperis application. See ECF Nos. 3, 5, 7. Each time, he 26 was sent another copy of the application form, and he was given anywhere from twenty-one to 27 thirty additional days to properly file it. See ECF Nos. 3, 5, 7. His most recent opportunity was 28 granted on June 30, 2020. See ECF No. 7. At that time, plaintiff was given twenty-one days wOAOe □□□ □□□ EOIN EIU IC er PAY ev 1 | within which to file the application properly. See id. at 2. Thus, plaintiff still has time to file a 2 || proper application. For these reasons, plaintiffs motion for an extension of time to file an in 3 | forma pauperis application will be denied. 4 | I. MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 5 Plaintiff has requested the appointment of counsel. ECF No. 8. In support of this request, 6 || plaintiff states that he is confused and “can’t seem to get any of the information” the court has 7 || directed him to file. See id. 8 The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require 9 | counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 10 | U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary 11 || assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 12 | (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). 13 A review of plaintiff’s complaint indicates that it is clearly written, and the court is able to 14 || understand his claims. See ECF No. | at 1-4. Although plaintiff states that he had assistance 15 || with preparing the pleading (see id. at 5), and he suggests that he needs help with filling out 16 || and/or filing the in forma pauperis application (see ECF No. 8), the record indicates that on June 17 || 1, 2020, the court clearly informed plaintiff that the sole deficiency in his May 2020 in forma 18 || pauperis application was the fact that it was not signed and dated. See ECF No. 5 at 1. Because 19 || the appointment of counsel is not necessary to correct this problem, the court does not find the 20 || required exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel will 21 | therefore be denied. 22 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 23 1. Plaintiff's request for an extension of time to file his in forma pauperis application 24 || (ECF No. 8) is DENIED, and 25 2. Plaintiff's request for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 8) is DENIED. 26 | DATED: July 13, 2020 ' 28 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE