Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01397/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01397-3/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. He requests appointment of counsel and an extension of time to file his 

opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment. 

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 2:12-cv-01397-KJM-EFB Document 40 Filed 07/23/13 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

 The court will, however, grant plaintiff’s request for an additional sixty (60) days in which 

to file his opposition. 

 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 

 1. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time (ECF No. 38) is granted and plaintiff has 60 

days from the date this order is served to file his opposition to defendants’ motion for summary 

judgment; and 

2. Plaintiff request for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 37) is denied. 

 So ordered. 

Dated: July 23, 2013. 

Case 2:12-cv-01397-KJM-EFB Document 40 Filed 07/23/13 Page 2 of 2