Gipbsin v. McCumber et al
Filing
18
ORDER denying 17 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 05/10/17. (Plummer, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
CLARENCE A. GIPBSIN,
11
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
v.
No. 2:16-cv-2053 MCE CKD P
ORDER
J. MCCUMBER, et al.,
Defendants.
15
16
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has requested
17
appointment of counsel. The court cannot require an attorney to represent a plaintiff who cannot
18
pay for the attorney’s services. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989).
19
However, under the federal in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the court may request
20
that an attorney represent a person unable to afford counsel. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). The court
21
will make that request only when there are exceptional circumstances. When determining
22
whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court considers, among other things, plaintiff's
23
likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro
24
se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970
25
(9th Cir. 2009). While the court is aware of the difficulties attendant to litigating an action while
26
incarcerated, circumstances common to most prisoners do not establish “exceptional
27
circumstances.” In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional
28
circumstances at this stage of these proceedings.
1
1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for the appointment of
2
counsel (No. 17) is denied.
3
Dated: May 10, 2017
_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
4
5
6
7
8
9
1/kly
gipb2053.31(2)
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?