(PC) Taylor v. Bird ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ARTHUR TAYLOR, No. 2:20-cv-2007 DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 LANDON BIRD, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 18 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Recently, plaintiff filed a document titled “Motion,” but the 19 nature of his request is unclear. (ECF No. 11.) At the conclusion of this document, he writes, “I 20 do need legal help!” Therefore, the Court construes this filing as a motion for appointment of 21 counsel. 22 The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require 23 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 25 assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 26 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). In the present 27 case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff’s request for the 28 appointment of counsel will therefore be denied. 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs request for the appointment of 2 | counsel is denied. 3 | Dated: March 20, 2021 4 5 6 | pipe. ORAH BARNES DB/Inbox/Substantive/tayl2007.31 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28