Washington v. Essex et al
Filing
76
ORDER denying 75 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 06/15/17. (Plummer, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
TRACYE BENARD WASHINGTON,
11
No. 2:12-cv-3054 JAM DB
Plaintiff,
12
v.
13
C. ESSEX, et al.,
14
ORDER
Defendants.
15
16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42
17
U.S.C. § 1983. For the third time, plaintiff requests that the court appoint counsel. (ECF No. 75.)
18
As plaintiff has been previously informed (see ECF Nos. 9; 35), district courts lack authority to
19
require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States
20
Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the court may
21
request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer,
22
935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir.
23
1990). When determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court must consider the
24
likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro
25
se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970
26
(9th Cir. 2009).
27
28
Having again considered those factors, the court still finds there are no exceptional
circumstances in this case. Additionally, plaintiff has successfully defeated both defendants’
1
1
motions for summary judgment without the assistance of counsel. (See ECF No. 74.) This
2
further confirms plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claims on a pro se basis.
3
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for the appointment of
4
counsel (ECF No. 75) is denied.
5
Dated: June 15, 2017
6
7
8
9
10
11
TIM-DLB:10
DB / ORDERS / ORDERS.PRISONER.CIVIL RIGHTS / wash.3054.31
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?