Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-00896/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-00896-4/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KESHAWN HOPKINS,

Plaintiff, No. 2:12-cv-0896 GEB EFB P

vs.

CDCR, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

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

U.S.C. § 1983. He one again requests that the court appoint counsel. 

As plaintiff has been previously 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

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). 

1

Case 2:12-cv-00896-TLN-EFB Document 33 Filed 06/04/13 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

Having considered those factors, the court still finds there are no exceptional

circumstances in this case. 

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

counsel, Dckt. No. 32, is denied.

DATED: June 3, 2013.

2

Case 2:12-cv-00896-TLN-EFB Document 33 Filed 06/04/13 Page 2 of 2