(PC Marconnett v. Sacramento County Sheriff Department et al

Filing 46

ORDER denying 42 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 04/17/12. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

VINCENT SCOTT MARCONNETT,

11

Plaintiff,
vs.

12
13

No. CIV S-09-3369 JAM EFB P

SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF
DEPARTMENT, et al.,

14
Defendants.

ORDER
/

15

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

16
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 an

20

attorney to voluntarily to represent such a plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Terrell v.

21

Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36

22

(9th Cir. 1990). When determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court must

23

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

24

his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560

25

F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). The court finds there are no exceptional circumstances in this

26

case.
1

1

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

2

counsel, Dckt. No. 42, is denied.

3

DATED: April 17, 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