From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. Akintola

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Sep 29, 2021
2:21-cv-0420-JAM-EFB P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 29, 2021)

Opinion

2:21-cv-0420-JAM-EFB P

09-29-2021

DONALD JOSHUA SMITH, Plaintiff, v. OMONIYI AKINTOLA, Defendant.


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 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 plaintiffs request for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 27) is denied.


Summaries of

Smith v. Akintola

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Sep 29, 2021
2:21-cv-0420-JAM-EFB P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 29, 2021)
Case details for

Smith v. Akintola

Case Details

Full title:DONALD JOSHUA SMITH, Plaintiff, v. OMONIYI AKINTOLA, Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Sep 29, 2021

Citations

2:21-cv-0420-JAM-EFB P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 29, 2021)