Williams v. Jackson

Filing 17

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 2/7/17 DENYING 16 Motion to Appoint Counsel.(Dillon, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BOBBY JAMES WILLIAMS, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:16-cv-2567-EFB P v. ORDER AJANI JACKSON, 15 Defendant. 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 17 18 U.S.C. § 1983. He again requests that the court appoint counsel. As plaintiff was previously 19 informed, district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in 20 section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In 21 exceptional circumstances, the court may request an attorney to voluntarily to represent such a 22 plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); 23 Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). When determining whether 24 “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court must consider the likelihood of success on the merits 25 as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the 26 legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). Having again 27 considered those factors, the court still finds there are no exceptional circumstances in this case. 28 ///// 1 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for appointment of 2 counsel (ECF No. 16) is denied. 3 DATED: February 7, 2017. 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?