Summary
This federal district court order denies a state prisoner's pro se motion to appoint counsel in a civil rights lawsuit filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court explains that while it lacks authority to compel representation for indigent litigants, it may request voluntary attorney assistance under exceptional circumstances. Applying Ninth Circuit precedent, the court determined the plaintiff failed to meet his burden to demonstrate such circumstances and denied the motion without prejudice.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court has authority to appoint counsel for an indigent prisoner in a §1983 action.
- Whether the plaintiff demonstrated the "exceptional circumstances" required for the court to request voluntary assistance of counsel.
Holdings
- The district court lacks authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in §1983 cases and may only request voluntary assistance in exceptional circumstances.
- The plaintiff failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances and the motion for appointment of counsel is denied.
Key quotations
“District courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases.” (at 1)
Factual background
The plaintiff is a state prisoner who filed a pro se §1983 action seeking appointment of counsel to assist him in the case.
Procedural history
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se under 42 U.S.C. §1983, filed a motion for the court to appoint counsel. The district court considered the motion and issued an order denying it.