Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01645/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01645-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Allen Hammler
Plaintiff
J. Wright
Defendant

Document Text:

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 

ALLEN HAMMLER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

J. WRIGHT, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:15-cv-1645-GEB-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 has been previously 

informed, ECF No. 23, 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 2:15-cv-01645-TLN-EFB Document 43 Filed 09/30/16 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. 42) is denied. 

DATED: September 29, 2016. 

Case 2:15-cv-01645-TLN-EFB Document 43 Filed 09/30/16 Page 2 of 2