From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Doria v. Nappi

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jan 3, 2013
No. 2:12-cv-0575 EFB P (E.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2013)

Opinion

No. 2:12-cv-0575 EFB P

01-03-2013

JAMES ANDREW DORIA, Plaintiff, v. ARNO NAPPI, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He requests that the court appoint counsel. District courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional circumstances, the court may request an attorney to voluntarily to represent such a plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). When determining whether "exceptional circumstances" exist, the court must consider the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). Having considered those factors, the court finds there are no exceptional circumstances in this case.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel, Dckt. No. 24, is denied.

____________________

EDMUND F. BRENNAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Doria v. Nappi

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jan 3, 2013
No. 2:12-cv-0575 EFB P (E.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2013)
Case details for

Doria v. Nappi

Case Details

Full title:JAMES ANDREW DORIA, Plaintiff, v. ARNO NAPPI, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jan 3, 2013

Citations

No. 2:12-cv-0575 EFB P (E.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2013)