Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01397/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01397-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

WILLIAM V. STICKLE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

R. COOK, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:12-cv-1397-KJM-EFB P 

ORDER 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. On July 23, 2013, the court denied plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel 

and granted him an extension of sixty days in which to file his opposition to defendants’ July 3, 

2013 motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 40. On September 20, 2013, the court granted 

plaintiff an additional sixty days in which to file his opposition. ECF No. 43. Plaintiff has now 

filed a document styled “Motion for Objection to Defendants Summary Judgment.” ECF No. 44. 

In that document plaintiff once again requests appointment of counsel. That request must be 

denied. 

As plaintiff has previously been informed, district courts lack authority to require counsel 

to represent indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. 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. § 1915(e)(1); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 

Case 2:12-cv-01397-KJM-EFB Document 45 Filed 10/29/13 Page 1 of 2
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2

1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 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. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 

(9th Cir. 2009). Having once again considered those factors, the court still finds there are no 

exceptional circumstances in this case. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s renewed request for appointment 

of counsel (ECF No. 44) is denied. Plaintiff’s opposition to defendants’ motion for summary 

judgment remains due November 19, 2013. 

DATED: October 29, 2013. 

Case 2:12-cv-01397-KJM-EFB Document 45 Filed 10/29/13 Page 2 of 2