Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-02427/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-02427-17/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

DENNIS G. CLAIBORNE,

Plaintiff, No. 2:10-cv-2427 LKK EFB P

vs.

BLAUSER, et al.,

ORDER

Defendants.

 /

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

U.S.C. § 1983. He requests appointment of counsel and that certain prison officials be indicted

and arrested. Dckt. No. 85

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 2:10-cv-02427-VAP Document 89 Filed 06/03/13 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 finds there are no exceptional circumstances in this

case. 

Additionally, this court cannot grant plaintiff’s request to indict and arrest prison

officials, as this is a civil suit, and generally, criminal statutes do not create private rights of

action. See Allen v. Gold Country Casino, 464 F.3d 1044, 1048 (9th Cir. 2006). Plaintiff fails to

cite to any authority that would authorize his requested relief.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s May 20, 2013 motion (Dckt.

No. 85) is denied. 

DATED: June 3, 2013.

2

Case 2:10-cv-02427-VAP Document 89 Filed 06/03/13 Page 2 of 2