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 requests that the court reconsider its denial of his motion to appoint counsel. ECF No. 188. As the court's prior order informed plaintiff, 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 again finds there are no exceptional circumstances in this case. While plaintiff urges that he is not trained in law and will face difficulty in preparing for trial, this fact is shared by many, if not the majority, of indigent prisoners. The issues that remain for trial in this case — the type and amount of damages plaintiff may recover — do not present the degree of legal complexity that warrants appointment of counsel.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's request for reconsideration of his motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 188) is denied.