Valdez v. Cate et al

Filing 14

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 2/7/13 denying 10 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

RICARDO VALDEZ,
Plaintiff,

11
12

No. 2:12-cv-2854 EFB P

vs.

13

MATTHEW CATE, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
16

ORDER
/

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

17

U.S.C. § 1983. He requests that the court appoint counsel. District courts lack authority to

18

require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States

19

Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional circumstances, the court may request an

20

attorney to voluntarily to represent such a plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Terrell v.

21

Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36

22

(9th Cir. 1990). When determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court must

23

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

24

his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560

25

F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). Having considered those factors, the court finds there are no

26

exceptional circumstances in this case.
1

1

On February 5, 2013, plaintiff filed a statement declining the jurisdiction of the

2

magistrate judge. Dckt. No. 12. However, no district judge will be assigned to the case at this

3

time, as plaintiff previously consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge on November 30,

4

2012. Dckt. No. 7.

5

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

6

counsel, Dckt. No. 10, is denied.

7

DATED: February 7, 2013.

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