Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01518/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01518-21/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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 

LATHAHN McELROY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

GUSTAFSON, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:12-cv-1518-TLN-EFB P 

ORDER 

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

U.S.C. § 1983. He has once again requested that the court appoint counsel. As plaintiff has been 

previously informed, see ECF Nos. 38, 58, 82, 94, 103, 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 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. 

Case 2:12-cv-01518-TLN-EFB Document 109 Filed 10/07/15 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

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

counsel (ECF No. 107) is denied. The court notes that plaintiff’s pretrial statement, which was 

originally due on July 2, 2015, must be filed no later than October 22, 2015. Failure to timely file 

a pretrial statement may result in a recommendation of dismissal 

DATED: October 6, 2015. 

Case 2:12-cv-01518-TLN-EFB Document 109 Filed 10/07/15 Page 2 of 2