Summary
This United States District Court order denies the plaintiff’s second motion for the appointment of counsel in a pro se civil rights action. The magistrate judge found that the plaintiff’s indigency and alleged mental health condition do not constitute the exceptional circumstances required under Ninth Circuit precedent to appoint voluntary counsel. Additionally, the court denied the plaintiff’s request to disregard a prior appointment motion as untimely, warning that future similar requests will be summarily denied absent significant changes in circumstances.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court may appoint counsel for an indigent prisoner in a §1983 case absent exceptional circumstances.
Holdings
- The district court lacks authority to appoint counsel for indigent prisoners in §1983 cases unless the plaintiff demonstrates exceptional circumstances; the plaintiff failed to do so, so the motion is denied.
Key quotations
“Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 16) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff’s request that the Court disregard his previously filed motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 17) is DENIED as UNTIMELY.”
Factual background
Malik Davis, an indigent prisoner, filed a motion requesting the court appoint counsel, citing indigence, a mental health condition, and the complexity of the case. He had previously filed two similar motions within a short time frame.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed two prior motions for appointment of counsel; this is the second motion and the court denied it.