Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denied without prejudice a state inmate’s motion to appoint counsel in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The court found no exceptional circumstances because the claims were not unusually complex and the plaintiff had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits. The court stated that it could revisit the issue if the interests of justice later required it.
Holdings
- Appointment of counsel was not warranted because the plaintiff failed to establish exceptional circumstances, including a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits and an inability to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues.
Questions Presented
- Whether exceptional circumstances justified requesting volunteer counsel for a pro se prisoner in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (2)
- Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997)(followed)
- Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…