Bontemps v. Sotak et al

Filing 95

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 3/10/2015 DENYING plaintiff's 93 request for appointment of counsel. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GREGORY C. BONTEMPS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:09-cv-2115-MCE-EFB P

v.

ORDER

SOTAK, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42

17
18

U.S.C. § 1983. He requests that the court appoint counsel. As plaintiff was previously informed,

19

see ECF No. 35, district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in

20

section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In

21

exceptional circumstances, the court may request an attorney to voluntarily to represent such a

22

plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991);

23

Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). When determining whether

24

“exceptional circumstances” exist, the court must consider the likelihood of success on the merits

25

as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the

26

legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). Having considered

27

those factors, the court finds there are no exceptional circumstances in this case.

28

/////
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for appointment of

2

counsel (ECF No. 93) is denied.

3

DATED: March 10, 2015.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2