(PC) Smith v. Miller ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JAMES ANTHONY SMITH, No. 2:15-cv-2534-TLN-EFB P 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER 13 SISKIYOU COUNTY JAIL, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 17 U.S.C. § 1983. He has again requested the appointment of counsel. 18 As plaintiff was previously informed, see ECF No. 39, district courts lack authority to 19 require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States 20 Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional circumstances, the court may request an 21 attorney to voluntarily to represent such a plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Terrell v. 22 Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th 23 Cir. 1990). When determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court must 24 consider the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate 25 his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 26 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). Having considered those factors, the court finds there are no 27 exceptional circumstances in this case. The court will, however, grant plaintiff an extension of 28 time to file a response to defendant Miller’s pending motion to dismiss. 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs request for the appointment of 2 || counsel (ECF No. 46) is denied. The court sua sponte grants plaintiff an extension of time to file 3 || his opposition or statement of no opposition to defendant Miller’s March 11, 2020 motion to 4 | dismiss. Plaintiff shall file his response to the motion to dismiss within thirty days from the date 5 | this order is served. 6 | DATED: March 24, 2020. att Zot Sn ao 7 EDMUND F. BRENNAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28