Alexander v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation et al

Filing 22

ORDER denying 21 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 08/27/12. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

ALEXIOS ALEXANDER,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14
15

No. 2:12-cv-0445 WBS EFB P

vs.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION,
et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
/

16
17
18

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. He once again requests that the court appoint counsel.

19

As was previously explained to plaintiff, district courts lack authority to require counsel

20

to represent indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490

21

U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional circumstances, the court may request an attorney to

22

voluntarily to represent such a plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d

23

1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990).

24

When determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court must consider the

25

likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims

26

pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965,

1

970 (9th Cir. 2009). Having considered those factors, the court finds there are still no

2

exceptional circumstances in this case.

3

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

4

appointment of counsel, Dckt. No. 21, is denied.

5

DATED: August 27, 2012.

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