Hopkins v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations et al

Filing 69

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 7/3/14 DENYING 68 Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Manzer, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KESHAWN HOPKINS,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:12-cv-896-TLN-EFB P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

CDCR, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Keshawn Hopkins (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in

18

an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has made numerous requests that the Court

19

appoint counsel (see ECF Nos. 22, 32, 47, 66). These requests have been considered and denied

20

by Magistrate Judge Brennan (see ECF Nos. 23, 33, 48, 67). Consequently, Plaintiff has appealed

21

the order denying his most recent request. (See ECF No. 68.)

22

As Plaintiff has been previously informed, district courts lack authority to require counsel

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). In determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court

27

must consider the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to

28

articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v.
1

1
2

Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009).
This Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Brennan’s finding that no exceptional

3

circumstances exist warranting the appointment of counsel. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for

4

Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 68) is hereby DENIED.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 3, 2014

7
8
9
10

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2