Linder v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
Filing
16
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 3/20/2018 DENYING plaintiff's 15 request for appointment of counsel. (Yin, K)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
DUANE PEYTON LINDER,
12
13
14
15
16
No. 2:17-cv-0943 EFB P
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION,
Defendant.
17
18
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42
19
U.S.C. § 1983. He requests that the court appoint counsel. District courts lack authority to
20
require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States
21
Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional circumstances, the court may request an
22
attorney to voluntarily to represent such a plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Terrell v.
23
Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th
24
Cir. 1990). When determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court must
25
consider the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate
26
his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560
27
F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). Having considered those factors, the court finds there are no
28
exceptional circumstances in this case.
1
1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for appointment of
2
counsel (ECF No. 15) is denied.
3
DATED: March 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
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?