From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Flournoy v. Maness

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Aug 5, 2013
2:11-cv-2844-KJM-EFB P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2013)

Opinion


JAMES HENRY FLOURNOY, Plaintiff, v. ERIC MANESS, et al., Defendants. No. 2:11-cv-2844-KJM-EFB P United States District Court, E.D. California. August 5, 2013

          ORDER

          EDMUND F. BRENNAN, Magistrate Judge.

         Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He requests an extension of time to submit to the court new information about where defendants Kinder and Sahba may be served with process. He also requests appointment of counsel and court assistance in locating new information about where defendants can be served.

         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. The court will however, grant plaintiff the requested extension of time. Plaintiff must continue in his efforts to locate new information about where defendants may be served. In light of the extension of time, plaintiff's request for court assistance will be denied, without prejudice.

         Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

         1. Plaintiff's request for an extension of time (ECF No. 34) is granted and plaintiff has 60 days from the date this order is served to submit new information about where defendants can be served with process; and

         2. Plaintiff's request for counsel and for court assistance (ECF No. 35) is denied without prejudice.


Summaries of

Flournoy v. Maness

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Aug 5, 2013
2:11-cv-2844-KJM-EFB P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2013)
Case details for

Flournoy v. Maness

Case Details

Full title:JAMES HENRY FLOURNOY, Plaintiff, v. ERIC MANESS, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Aug 5, 2013

Citations

2:11-cv-2844-KJM-EFB P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2013)