From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Scott v. McDonald

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jul 30, 2012
No. 2:09-cv-0851 MCE EFB P (E.D. Cal. Jul. 30, 2012)

Opinion

No. 2:09-cv-0851 MCE EFB P

07-30-2012

HOWARD SCOTT, Plaintiff, v. M. MCDONALD, 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. 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 motion for appointment of counsel, Dckt. No. 85, is denied.

______________

EDMUND F. BRENNAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Scott v. McDonald

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jul 30, 2012
No. 2:09-cv-0851 MCE EFB P (E.D. Cal. Jul. 30, 2012)
Case details for

Scott v. McDonald

Case Details

Full title:HOWARD SCOTT, Plaintiff, v. M. MCDONALD, et al., Defendants.

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

Date published: Jul 30, 2012

Citations

No. 2:09-cv-0851 MCE EFB P (E.D. Cal. Jul. 30, 2012)