Gustard v. Harris et al

Filing 16

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 9/28/2017 DENYING 7 Request for Appointment of Counsel. (Henshaw, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTOPHER IAN GUSTARD, 12 No. 2:17-cv-0012-EFB P Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 KAMALA D. HARRIS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is a federal inmate proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 17 18 U.S.C. § 1983. He requests that the court appoint counsel. District courts lack authority to 19 require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States 20 Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional circumstances, the court may request an 21 attorney to voluntarily to represent such a plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Terrell v. 22 Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th 23 Cir. 1990). When determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court must 24 consider the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate 25 his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 26 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). Having considered those factors, the court finds there are no 27 exceptional circumstances in this case. 28 ///// 1 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for appointment of 2 counsel (ECF No. 7) is denied. 3 DATED: September 28, 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?