Khouanmany v. United States Marshals et al

Filing 79

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 4/23/19 DENYING 78 Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Plummer, M)

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, 49, 60, 64, 67, district courts lack authority

20

to 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 once again, the court still finds

28

there are no exceptional circumstances in this case.
1

1

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

2

counsel (ECF No. 76) is denied.

3

DATED: April 23, 2019.

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