UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 24, 2012
L. CANNEDY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: J. Clifford Wallace United States Circuit Judge
ORDER DENYING SECOND MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (DKT. 78)
On July 13, 2009, plaintiff Raashad Carter filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel (dkt. 17), which the court denied without prejudice on September 28, 2009 (dkt. 27).
On January 12, 2012, Carter filed a second motion seeking the appointment of counsel (dkt. 78). This motion is hereby DENIED.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), I "may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel." This provision permits me to ask a lawyer to represent an indigent litigant, but not compel the lawyer to do so. Mallard v. United States Dist. Ct., 490 U.S. 296, 307 (1989). There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in section 1983 actions. Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir.1981).
I may request representation from counsel under § 1915(e)(1) only in "exceptional circumstances." Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). "A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision." Id. (citations and internal punctuation omitted).
Here, Carter has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits. Also, Carter has demonstrated a reasonable ability to articulate his claims, which are not complex. In sum, this case does not present the "exceptional circumstances" that would justify requesting representation of counsel.
J. Clifford Wallace
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.