Williams v. Just, 2:18-CV-0740-DMC-P. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20190530a95
Visitors: 4
Filed: May 29, 2019
Latest Update: May 29, 2019
Summary: ORDER DENNIS M. COTA , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. Pending before the court are plaintiff's motion for appointment of an investigator (ECF No. 27) and plaintiff's request for service of subpoenas by the United States Marshal (ECF No. 29). Plaintiff's motion for access to services provided to indigent litigants is denied because plaintiff is precluded from proceeding in forma pauperis in this actio
Summary: ORDER DENNIS M. COTA , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. Pending before the court are plaintiff's motion for appointment of an investigator (ECF No. 27) and plaintiff's request for service of subpoenas by the United States Marshal (ECF No. 29). Plaintiff's motion for access to services provided to indigent litigants is denied because plaintiff is precluded from proceeding in forma pauperis in this action..
More
ORDER
DENNIS M. COTA, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court are plaintiff's motion for appointment of an investigator (ECF No. 27) and plaintiff's request for service of subpoenas by the United States Marshal (ECF No. 29).
Plaintiff's motion for access to services provided to indigent litigants is denied because plaintiff is precluded from proceeding in forma pauperis in this action.
To the extent plaintiff seeks public funds for appointment of an investigator, plaintiff's motion is denied for the reason outlined above. Moreover, to the extent plaintiff must demonstrate "exceptional circumstances" for the appointment of an investigator, see e.g. Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991) (discussing appointment of counsel upon a finding of "exceptional circumstances"), plaintiff has not made any showing. In his motion, plaintiff states that his indigent status prevents him from obtaining an investigator on his own. As indicated above, plaintiff is not entitled to proceed under the rules applicable to indigent litigants. Therefore, his indigency alone cannot establish "exceptional circumstances."
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion (ECF No. 27) and plaintiff's request (ECF No. 29) are both denied.
Source: Leagle
