From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. Priolo

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Aug 3, 2012
No. 2:09-cv-0654 JAM EFB P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2012)

Opinion

No. 2:09-cv-0654 JAM EFB P

08-03-2012

EARL D. SMITH, Plaintiff, v. B. PRIOLO, 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 request for appointment of counsel, Dckt. No. 48, is denied.

____________________

EDMUND F. BRENNAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Smith v. Priolo

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Aug 3, 2012
No. 2:09-cv-0654 JAM EFB P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2012)
Case details for

Smith v. Priolo

Case Details

Full title:EARL D. SMITH, Plaintiff, v. B. PRIOLO, et al., Defendants.

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

Date published: Aug 3, 2012

Citations

No. 2:09-cv-0654 JAM EFB P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2012)