Gibbs v. Peterson, et al

Filing 55

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 4/27/2017 DENYING 54 Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Henshaw, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 KENNETH GIBBS, 10 11 12 No. 2:15-cv-0061 KJM CKD P Plaintiff, v. ORDER MACCOMBER, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has requested 16 appointment of counsel. The court cannot require an attorney to represent a plaintiff who cannot 17 pay for the attorney’s services. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). 18 However, under the federal in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the court may request 19 that an attorney represent a person unable to afford counsel. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). The court 20 will make that request only when there are exceptional circumstances. When determining 21 whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court considers, among other things, plaintiff's 22 likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro 23 se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 24 (9th Cir. 2009). While the court is aware of the difficulties attendant to litigating an action while 25 incarcerated, circumstances common to most prisoners do not establish “exceptional 26 circumstances.” 27 28 In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances at this stage of these proceedings. 1 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for the appointment of 2 counsel (ECF No. 54) is denied. 3 Dated: April 27, 2017 _____________________________________ CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 4 5 6 7 8 9 1/kly gibb0061.31 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?