Nathanael James Carter, Jr. v. D. Murphy, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denied without prejudice a state prisoner’s motion for appointment of counsel in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Applying the exceptional-circumstances standard, the court found that the plaintiff had not demonstrated a sufficient likelihood of success or inability to articulate his claims pro se.

Holdings

1. A district court may request an attorney to voluntarily represent an indigent prisoner in a § 1983 action only when exceptional circumstances exist, evaluated by considering the plaintiff's likelihood of success on the merits and ability to articulate claims in light of the complexity of the legal issues. Plaintiff failed to meet his burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances, so the motion was denied without prejudice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the plaintiff demonstrated exceptional circumstances warranting the court's request for voluntary appointment of counsel in his § 1983 action.

Disposition

other