(PC) Taylor v. Bird

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARTHUR TAYLOR, No. 2:20-cv-2007 DB P

Plaintiff, v. ORDER LANDON BIRD,

Defendant.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Recently, plaintiff filed a document titled “Motion,” but the nature of his request is unclear. (ECF No. 11.) At the conclusion of this document, he writes, “I do need legal help!” Therefore, the Court construes this filing as a motion for appointment of counsel.

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490

24 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 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). In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel will therefore be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs request for the appointment of counsel is denied.

Dated: March 20, 2021 pipe. ORAH BARNES DB/Inbox/Substantive/tayl2007.31 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE