From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bontemps v. Sotak

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 10, 2015
No. 2:09-cv-2115-MCE-EFB P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2015)

Opinion

No. 2:09-cv-2115-MCE-EFB P

03-10-2015

GREGORY C. BONTEMPS, Plaintiff, v. SOTAK, 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. As plaintiff was previously informed, see ECF No. 35, 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 (ECF No. 93) is denied. DATED: March 10, 2015.

/s/_________

EDMUND F. BRENNAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Bontemps v. Sotak

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 10, 2015
No. 2:09-cv-2115-MCE-EFB P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2015)
Case details for

Bontemps v. Sotak

Case Details

Full title:GREGORY C. BONTEMPS, Plaintiff, v. SOTAK, et al., Defendants.

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

Date published: Mar 10, 2015

Citations

No. 2:09-cv-2115-MCE-EFB P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2015)