Christ v. Blackwell

Full title: JON CHRIST, Plaintiff, v. R. BLACKWELL, et al., Defendants.

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

Date published: Sep 26, 2013

2:10-cv-760-EFB P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 26, 2013)

Opinion

JON CHRIST, Plaintiff, v. R. BLACKWELL, et al., Defendants. No. 2:10-cv-760-EFB P United States District Court, E.D. California. September 26, 2013

          ORDER

          EDMUND F. BRENNAN, Magistrate Judge.

         Jon Christ, plaintiff, is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case is before the court pursuant to the parties' consent. ECF Nos. 4, 14, 74; 28 U.S.C. § 636; E.D. Cal. Local Rules, Appx. A, at (k)(1)-(2). Plaintiff has filed a motion requesting appointment of counsel. ECF No. 115.

         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, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 104 L.Ed.2d 318 (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).

         The court finds no exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel at this time, and plaintiff's motion (ECF No. 115) is therefore denied without prejudice.

         So ordered.