David Bennett v. Gavin Newsom, et al.

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 DAVID BENNETT, No. 2:24-cv-00005-DAD-EFB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 GAVIN NEWSOM, et al., 15 Defendants. [16] 17 Plaintiff is a county jail inmate proceeding pro se in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 18 1983. Plaintiff requests that the court appoint counsel. District courts lack authority to require 19 counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. 20 Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional circumstances, the court may request an attorney 21 to voluntarily represent such a plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(1); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 22 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). 23 When determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court must consider plaintiff’s 24 likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro 25 se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965 , 970 26 (9th Cir. 2009) (district court did not abuse discretion in declining to appoint counsel). 27 The court has recently denied plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel, and 28 plaintiff’s new motion does not present any new information showing exceptional circumstances. ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of 2 || counsel (ECF No. 19) is DENIED. 4 || Dated: November 12, 2025 Zat?l ited LACL EDMUND F. BRENNAN 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE