Ward v. Ives et al

Filing 28

ORDER denying 27 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 05/13/13. (Plummer, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JOHN C. WARD, Plaintiff, 11 vs. 12 13 No. 2:11-cv-1657 GEB EFB P RICHARD IVES, et al., Defendants. 14 ORDER / 15 Plaintiff is a federal prisoner proceeding in this civil action. He requests that the court 16 17 appoint counsel. District courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners 18 in section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In 19 exceptional circumstances, the court may request an attorney to voluntarily to represent such a 20 plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); 21 Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). When determining whether 22 “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court must consider the likelihood of success on the 23 merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 24 complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). 25 Having considered those factors, the court finds there are no exceptional circumstances in this 26 case. 1 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for appointment of 2 counsel, Dckt. No. 27, is denied. 3 DATED: May 13, 2013. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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?