JAMISON v. DAVUE, 2:11-cv-2056 WBS DAD P. (2013)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20130530a74
Visitors: 10
Filed: May 29, 2013
Latest Update: May 29, 2013
Summary: ORDER DALE A. DROZD, Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff is a former county inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiff has requested the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff is advised that federal district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent plaintiffs in civil cases. See Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296 , 298 (1989). The court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel under the fed
Summary: ORDER DALE A. DROZD, Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff is a former county inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiff has requested the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff is advised that federal district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent plaintiffs in civil cases. See Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296 , 298 (1989). The court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel under the fede..
More
ORDER
DALE A. DROZD, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff is a former county inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has requested the appointment of counsel.
Plaintiff is advised that federal district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent plaintiffs in civil cases. See Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). The court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel under the federal in forma pauperis statute, but only under exceptional circumstances. 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). The test for exceptional circumstances requires the court to evaluate the plaintiff's likelihood of success on the merits and the plaintiff's ability to articulate his or her claims. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 58) is denied.
Source: Leagle
