Childs v. State of California et al

Filing 47

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 9/16/2014 DENYING plaintiff's 46 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

E. CHILDS,

12
13
14

No. 2:13-cv-670-TLN-EFB P
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 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 again requests that the court appoint counsel. As plaintiff has been previously

19

informed (see ECF Nos. 17, 37), 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 considered those factors, the court still finds there are no exceptional circumstances in

28

this case.
1

1

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

2

counsel (ECF No. 46) is denied.

3

DATED: September 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