Williams v. Jackson

Filing 77

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 8/20/2018 DENYING 53 and 74 Requests for Appointment of Counsel. (Henshaw, R)

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-MCE-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, see ECF Nos. 15, 17, 41, 43, district courts lack authority to require counsel to

20

represent indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S.

21

296, 298 (1989). In exceptional circumstances, the court may request an attorney to voluntarily

22

to 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 finds there are no exceptional circumstances in this

28

case.
1

1

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

2

counsel (ECF Nos. 53, 74) are denied.

3

DATED: August 20, 2018.

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