Heilman v. Cherniss et al
Filing
96
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 4/2/14 DENYING 94 Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Dillon, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
THOMAS JOHN HEILMAN,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
No. 2:11-cv-42-JAM-EFB P
v.
ORDER
C. CHERNISS, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42
18
U.S.C. § 1983. He once again requests that the court appoint counsel. As plaintiff has been
19
previously informed, district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent
20
prisoners in section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989).
21
In 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. 94) is denied.
3
DATED: April 2, 2014.
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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?