Kirk v. Heinrich et al
Filing
76
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 8/27/13 ORDERING that plaintiffs request for an extension of time (ECF No. 72 ) is DENIED as moot, and his request for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 71 ) is also DENIED.(Dillon, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
LARRY W. KIRK,
11
12
13
14
No. 2:11-cv-323-WBS-EFB P
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
HEINRICH,
Defendant.
15
16
Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under
17
42 U.S.C. § 1983. He requests appointment of counsel and an extension of time. For the reasons
18
stated at the August 21, 2012 status conference, plaintiff’s request for an extension of time is
19
denied as moot, and his request for appointment of counsel is also denied.
20
District courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section
21
1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional
22
circumstances, the court may request an attorney to voluntarily to represent such a plaintiff. See
23
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v.
24
Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). When determining whether “exceptional
25
circumstances” exist, the court must consider the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the
26
ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues
27
involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). Having considered those factors,
28
the court finds there are no exceptional circumstances in this case.
1
1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for an extension of time
2
(ECF No. 72) is denied as moot, and his request for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 71) is also
3
denied.
4
DATED: August 27, 2013.
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?