Suarez v. Cate, et. al.
Filing
80
ORDER denying 79 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 10/27/15. (Plummer, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
MAHER SUAREZ,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
No. 2:12-cv-2048-KJM-EFB P
v.
ORDER
JEFFREY BEARD, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42
17
18
U.S.C. § 1983. He again requests that the court appoint counsel. As plaintiff has been previously
19
informed, see ECF No. 70, district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent
20
prisoners in section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989).
21
In exceptional circumstances, the court may request an attorney to voluntarily to represent such a
22
plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991);
23
Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). When determining whether
24
“exceptional circumstances” exist, the court must consider the likelihood of success on the merits
25
as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the
26
legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). Having considered
27
those factors, the court still finds there are no exceptional circumstances in this case.
28
/////
1
1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for appointment of
2
counsel (ECF No. 79) is denied.
3
DATED: October 27, 2015.
4
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?