Rafael Salas v. C. Pfeiffer, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denied without prejudice Rafael Salas’s motion for appointment of pro bono counsel in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The court found no constitutional right to appointed counsel and concluded that exceptional circumstances were not present because Salas had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits and appeared able to articulate his claims pro se.

Holdings

1. A plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this § 1983 action.
2. The court cannot require an attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), although it may request voluntary assistance in exceptional circumstances.
3. Exceptional circumstances were not established because Plaintiff was not shown to be likely to succeed on the merits and appeared able to articulate his claims pro se despite the complexity of the legal issues.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court should appoint or request pro bono counsel for a pro se prisoner litigating § 1983 claims.
2. Whether exceptional circumstances existed based on Plaintiff's likelihood of success on the merits and ability to articulate his claims pro se.

Disposition

other