From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hill v. Dir. of Corr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 20, 2013
No. 2:11-cv-3409 EFB P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2013)

Opinion

No. 2:11-cv-3409 EFB P

03-20-2013

KENNETH HILL, Plaintiff, v. DIRECTOR OF CORRECTIONS, 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. 18, is denied.

________________________

EDMUND F. BRENNAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Hill v. Dir. of Corr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 20, 2013
No. 2:11-cv-3409 EFB P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2013)
Case details for

Hill v. Dir. of Corr.

Case Details

Full title:KENNETH HILL, Plaintiff, v. DIRECTOR OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants.

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

Date published: Mar 20, 2013

Citations

No. 2:11-cv-3409 EFB P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2013)