Burgos v. Long et al

Filing 106

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 2/19/13 DENYING 105 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

RICHARD MANUEL BURGOS,
Plaintiff,

11
vs.

12
13

No. 2:10-cv-3274 GEB EFB P

ROBERT LONG, 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 has once again requested that the court appoint counsel. As plaintiff has

18

been previously informed, district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

////
1

1

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

2

this case.

3

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

4

counsel, Dckt. No. 105, is denied.

5

DATED: February 19, 2013.

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