Coston v. Nangalama et al

Filing 76

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 4/15/13 DENYING 75 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

DANNY MURPHY COSTON,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:10-cv-2009 MCE EFB P

vs.
ANDREW NANGALAMA, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
/

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

17

U.S.C. § 1983. On April 10, 2013, plaintiff filed a document in which he states that he does not

18

have an attorney and requests that he be enrolled in the court’s pro bono program. The court

19

construes plaintiff's request as a request for appointment of counsel.

20

District courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the
1

1

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

2

Having considered those factors, the court finds there are no exceptional circumstances in this

3

case.

4

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

5

counsel, Dckt. No. 75, is denied.

6

DATED: April 15, 2013.

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