(PC) Curry v. Sessions ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RYAN INDIANA CURRY, No. 2:20-cv-0227-TLN-EFB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SESSIONS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. He requests that the court reconsider its denial of his motion to appoint counsel. 19 ECF No. 20. As the court’s prior order informed plaintiff, district courts lack authority to require 20 counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. 21 Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional circumstances, the court may request an attorney 22 to voluntarily to represent such a plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 23 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). 24 When determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court must consider the 25 likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro 26 se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 27 (9th Cir. 2009). Having considered those factors, the court again finds there are no exceptional 28 circumstances in this case. 2 OU UV PRINCE BP MVOC Ce PI VM hOre POY ee 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs request for reconsideration of his 2 | motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 20) is denied. 3 | DATED: May 18, 2020. 4 tid, PDEA 5 EDMUND F. BRENNAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28