Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00960/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00960-3/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 

ANTOINE L. ARDDS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

WILLIAM KNIPP, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-960-KJM-EFB P 

ORDER 

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

U.S.C. § 1983. He again requests that the court appoint counsel. As plaintiff was previously 

advised, 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 considered those factors, 

the court finds there are no exceptional circumstances in this case. 

///// 

Case 2:14-cv-00960-KJM-EFB Document 33 Filed 10/09/15 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. 32) is denied. 

DATED: October 8, 2015. 

Case 2:14-cv-00960-KJM-EFB Document 33 Filed 10/09/15 Page 2 of 2