Calhoun v. Gomez et al

Filing 55

ORDER denying 54 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 06/16/14. (Plummer, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMONT L. CALHOUN, 12 13 14 No. 2:12-cv-2856-GEB-EFB P Plaintiff, v. ORDER M. GOMEZ, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. He once again requests that the court appoint counsel. As plaintiff was 19 previously informed, see ECF No. 50, district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent 20 indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 21 (1989). In exceptional circumstances, the court may request an attorney to voluntarily to 22 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 again considered those factors, the court still finds there are no exceptional circumstances 28 in this case. 1 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for appointment of 2 counsel (ECF No. 54) is denied. 3 DATED: June 16, 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

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?