Khouanmany v. United States Marshals et al

Filing 60

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 8/20/2018 DENYING plaintiff's 57 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

VILAYCHITH KHOUANMANY,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:17-cv-1326-TLN-EFB P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

UNITED STATES MARSHALS, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with claims premised under Bivens v. Six

18

Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). She requests that the court appoint counsel. As

19

has previously been explained, see ECF Nos 31, 42, 29, district courts lack authority to require

20

counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist.

21

Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional circumstances, the court may request an attorney

22

to voluntarily to represent such a plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Terrell v. Brewer, 935

23

F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990).

24

When determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court must consider the

25

likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro

26

se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970

27

(9th Cir. 2009). Having considered those factors again, the court still 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. 57) is 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