CALHOUN v. GOMEZ, 2:12-cv-2856-GEB-EFB P. (2014)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20140618907
Visitors: 17
Filed: Jun. 16, 2014
Latest Update: Jun. 16, 2014
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 once again requests that the court appoint counsel. As plaintiff was previously informed, see ECF No. 50, 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 vo
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 once again requests that the court appoint counsel. As plaintiff was previously informed, see ECF No. 50, 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 vol..
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 once again requests that the court appoint counsel. As plaintiff was previously informed, see ECF No. 50, 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 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. 54) is denied.
Source: Leagle
