Filed: Oct. 06, 2015
Latest Update: Oct. 06, 2015
Summary: ORDER EDMUND F. BRENNAN , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983. He has once again requested that the court appoint counsel. As plaintiff has been previously informed, see ECF Nos. 38, 58, 82, 94, 103, 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 co
Summary: ORDER EDMUND F. BRENNAN , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983. He has once again requested that the court appoint counsel. As plaintiff has been previously informed, see ECF Nos. 38, 58, 82, 94, 103, 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 cou..
More
ORDER
EDMUND F. BRENNAN, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has once again requested that the court appoint counsel. As plaintiff has been previously informed, see ECF Nos. 38, 58, 82, 94, 103, 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 once again considered those factors, the court still finds there are no exceptional circumstances in this case.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 107) is denied. The court notes that plaintiff's pretrial statement, which was originally due on July 2, 2015, must be filed no later than October 22, 2015. Failure to timely file a pretrial statement may result in a recommendation of dismissal.
