Opinion
No. 2:12-cv-1397-KJM-EFB P
10-29-2013
WILLIAM V. STICKLE, Plaintiff, v. R. COOK, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 23, 2013, the court denied plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel and granted him an extension of sixty days in which to file his opposition to defendants' July 3, 2013 motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 40. On September 20, 2013, the court granted plaintiff an additional sixty days in which to file his opposition. ECF No. 43. Plaintiff has now filed a document styled "Motion for Objection to Defendants Summary Judgment." ECF No. 44. In that document plaintiff once again requests appointment of counsel. That request must be denied.
As plaintiff has previously been informed, 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 once again considered those factors, the court still finds there are no exceptional circumstances in this case.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's renewed request for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 44) is denied. Plaintiff's opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment remains due November 19, 2013.
________________
EDMUND F. BRENNAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE