Bontemps v. Sotak et al

Filing 35

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 3/5/12 denying 32 Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

GREGORY C. BONTEMPS,
Plaintiff,

11
vs.

12
13

No. CIV S-09-2115 LKK EFB P

SOTAK, et al.,
Defendants.

14

ORDER
/

15
16

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42

17

U.S.C. § 1983. He requests that the court appoint counsel. District courts lack authority to

18

require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States

19

Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional circumstances, the court may request

20

counsel voluntarily to represent such a plaintiff. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Terrell v. Brewer, 935

21

F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990).

22

When determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court must consider the

23

likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims

24

pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965,

25

970 (9th Cir. 2009). The court finds there are no exceptional circumstances in this case.

26

////
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s February 24, 2012 motion for

2

appointment of counsel is denied.

3

DATED: March 5, 2012.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2