Ward v. Ives

Full title: JOHN C. WARD, Plaintiff, v. RICHARD IVES, et al., Defendants.

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

Date published: May 13, 2013

2:11-cv-1657 GEB EFB P (E.D. Cal. May. 13, 2013)

Opinion

JOHN C. WARD, Plaintiff, v. RICHARD IVES, et al., Defendants. No. 2:11-cv-1657 GEB EFB P United States District Court, E.D. California. May 13, 2013

          ORDER

          EDMUND F. BRENNAN, Magistrate Judge.

         Plaintiff is a federal prisoner proceeding in this civil action. 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. 27, is denied.