(PC) Epps v. Archie

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ROBERT EPPS, No. 2:23-cv-00135-DAD-EFB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ARCHIE, 15 Defendant.

18 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 19 U.S.C. § 1983. He again requests that the court appoint counsel. ECF No. 39.

20 Plaintiff asks the court to inform him whether he is entitled to appointment of an attorney should this case go to trial because, if not, he will try to hire one. Plaintiff is not entitled to appointment of counsel in this civil case. As the court has informed plaintiff several times, district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases.

24 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. § 26 1915(e)(1); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 27 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.

3 || Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). Plaintiff has again failed to show | exceptional circumstances.

5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for appointment of || counsel (ECF No. 39) is denied without prejudice.

8 | Dated: February 29, 2024 ZED CT hee, oi □ LAEC_AV 9 EDMUND F. BRENNAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE