Kieu

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTOINE L. ARDDS, No. 2:20-cv-0133 TLN CSK P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 V. KIEU, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 18 Plaintiff renews his motion for appointment of counsel. As discussed below, plaintiff’s motion is 19 denied, but plaintiff is granted an extension of time to file objections to the pending findings and 20 recommendations. 21 Background 22 On January 16, 2025, the Court recommended that defendants’ motion for summary 23 judgment be granted, and denied plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 90.) 24 The parties were granted fourteen days to file objections to the findings and recommendations. 25 (Id.) 26 Discussion 27 District courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 28 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional 1 || circumstances, the…