(PC) Montezello v. Pesce ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAYMOND MONTEZELLO aka ROY A. No. 2:21-cv-0906-KJM-EFB P MONTES, 12 Plaintiff, 13 ORDER v. 14 PESCE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 19 U.S.C. § 1983. He requests that the court appoint him counsel. 20 District courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 21 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional 22 circumstances, the court may request an attorney to voluntarily to represent such a plaintiff. See 23 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. 24 Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). When determining whether “exceptional 25 circumstances” exist, the court must consider the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the 26 ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues 27 involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). Having considered those factors, 28 the court finds there are no exceptional circumstances in this case. ] Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs request for the appointment of counsel 2 || (ECF No. 24) is DENIED. 3 || Dated: April 21, 2022. ‘ tid 5 EDMUND F. BRENNAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28