IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 11, 2013
MARIO A. WILLIAMS, PLAINTIFF,
GARY SWARTHOUT, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Allison Claire United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff has requested the appointment of counsel. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 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).
In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff has been able to articulate his claims, and any difficulty plaintiff currently claims, such as the need to conduct discovery, is not derived from the complexity of the issues involved. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986).
Plaintiff argues that he may experience retaliation on account of his lawsuit, that the case may be tried to a jury, or that he may need expert testimony. See ECF No. 30 at 3-4. Because plaintiff's arguments are speculative, they are currently insufficient to warrant the relief requested. However, the court will deny the motion without prejudice to renewal at a later date, in case plaintiff's circumstances change.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's request for the appointment of counsel (Docket No. 30) is denied without prejudice to renewal at a later stage in the proceedings.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.