From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lewis v. Velasquez-Miranda

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Aug 6, 2021
2:21-cv-0932-JAM-EFB P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2021)

Opinion

2:21-cv-0932-JAM-EFB P

08-06-2021

DARONTA TYRONE LEWIS, Plaintiff, v. M. VELASQUEZ-MIRANDA, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

EDMUND F. BRENNAN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He again requests that the court appoint counsel. As plaintiff has been previously informed (see ECF Nos. 30, 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 again considered those factors, the court finds there are still no exceptional circumstances in this case.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs request for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 34) is denied.


Summaries of

Lewis v. Velasquez-Miranda

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Aug 6, 2021
2:21-cv-0932-JAM-EFB P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2021)
Case details for

Lewis v. Velasquez-Miranda

Case Details

Full title:DARONTA TYRONE LEWIS, Plaintiff, v. M. VELASQUEZ-MIRANDA, et al.…

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Aug 6, 2021

Citations

2:21-cv-0932-JAM-EFB P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2021)