(PC) Hudson v. Neuschmid

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TORIANO GERMAINE HUDSON, No. 2:20-cv-0483-EFB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ROBERT NEUSCHMID, 15 Defendant.

17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. He again requests that the court appoint counsel. As plaintiff has been previously informed (see ECF No. 12), 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).

21 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 still finds there are no exceptional circumstances in this case.

28 ///// wOAOe 2 UV RT BP MMVUUETTOCII Ay PR Vote Ye eT 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs request for appointment of || counsel (ECF No. 17) is denied.

3 | DATED: September 1, 2020. att Zot Sn ao 4 EDMUND F. BRENNAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE