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 appointment of counsel, arguing that defendants are withholding discovery on the basis of his status as a pro se prisoner. ECF No. 72.

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. Thus, the court declines to appoint counsel at this time. To the extent plaintiff argues that defendants are improperly withholding responses to his discovery requests, he shall file a motion to compel in accordance with the court's December 19, 2017 order (ECF No. 69).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 72) is denied without prejudice.