ORDER

EDMUND F. BRENNAN, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In a motion titled, "motion for excusable neglect," plaintiff seeks the appointment of counsel and "a reasonable amount of time to do research." ECF No. 105.

This matter is set for trial in July of 2016. ECF No. 92. It is not clear why plaintiff needs more time to research, or what he intends to research. As there are no applicable deadlines to extend, plaintiff's request for more time is denied as unnecessary.

Moreover, district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional circumstances, the court may request an attorney to voluntarily to represent such a plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). When determining whether "exceptional circumstances" exist, the court must consider the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). Having considered those factors, the court finds there are no exceptional circumstances in this case.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's "motion for excusable neglect" (ECF No. 105), in which plaintiff seeks the appointment of counsel and "a reasonable amount of time to do research," is denied.