Revis v. Syerson et al

Filing 35

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 5/7/2014 DENYING plaintiff's 34 request for appointment of counsel. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANDRE L. REVIS,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:12-cv-2751-MCE-EFB P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

DALE SYERSON, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42

18

U.S.C. § 1983. He once against requests that the court appoint counsel. As plaintiff has been

19

previously informed (see ECF Nos. 12, 26), district courts lack authority to require counsel to

20

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

21

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

22

to represent such a plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017

23

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

24

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

25

success on the merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of

26

the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009).

27

Having once again considered those factors, the court still finds there are no exceptional

28

circumstances in this case.
1

1

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

2

counsel (ECF No. 34) is denied.

3

DATED: May 7, 2014.

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