Hopkins v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations et al

Filing 33

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 6/3/13 DENYING 32 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

KESHAWN HOPKINS,

11

Plaintiff,

No. 2:12-cv-0896 GEB EFB P

Defendants.

ORDER

12
13
14

vs.
CDCR, et al.,

/

15
16
17
18

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. He one again requests that the court appoint counsel.
As plaintiff has been previously informed, district courts lack authority to require counsel

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

970 (9th Cir. 2009).
1

1
2
3

Having considered those factors, the court still finds there are no exceptional
circumstances in this case.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for appointment of

4

counsel, Dckt. No. 32, is denied.

5

DATED: June 3, 2013.

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