Herrera v. Gardner et al

Filing 96

ORDER denying 95 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 03/12/12. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

ARMANDO HERRERA,
Plaintiff,

11
vs.

12
13

No. CIV S-10-1744 GEB EFB P

GARDENER, et al.,
Defendants.

14

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 March 5, 2012 motion for

2

appointment of counsel is denied.

3

DATED: March 12, 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