(PC) Epps v. Archie

E.D. California

(PC) Epps v. Archie

DecidedFebruary 13, 2024

Docket2:23-cv-00135

StatusUnknown

This text of (PC) Epps v. Archie ((PC) Epps v. Archie) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

(PC) Epps v. Archie, (E.D. Cal. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT EPPS, No. 2:23-cv-00135-DAD-EFB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 ARCHIE, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 19 U.S.C. § 1983. He again requests that the court appoint counsel. ECF No. 35. 20 District courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 21 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional 22 circumstances, the court may request an attorney to voluntarily to represent such a plaintiff. See 23 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. 24 Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). When determining whether “exceptional 25 circumstances” exist, the court must consider the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the 26 ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues 27 involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). 28 1 Having considered those factors, the court finds there are no exceptional circumstances in 2 || this case. Plaintiff states that he has been found incompetent in state court in 2011 and 2016. As 3 | the court has already informed plaintiff, to justify appointment of counsel based on health 4 | limitations, a plaintiff must present evidence documenting those limitations as well as evidence 5 | that the limitations significantly impair the plaintiff’s ability to litigate the case. Brown v. Reif, 6 | No. 2:18-cv-01088 KJM CKD P, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33310, at *6-8 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2019) 7 || (and cases cited therein). Plaintiff has not presented any evidence substantiating his claims of 8 || impairment. 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs request for appointment of 10 || counsel (ECF No. 35) is denied without prejudice. Datu EBL 12 | Dated: February 12, 2024 ZA LE i +LHECAU, B EDMUND F. BRENNAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT EPPS, No. 2:23-cv-00135-DAD-EFB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 ARCHIE, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 19 U.S.C. § 1983. He again requests that the court appoint counsel. ECF No. 35. 20 District courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 21 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional 22 circumstances, the court may request an attorney to voluntarily to represent such a plaintiff. See 23 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. 24 Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). When determining whether “exceptional 25 circumstances” exist, the court must consider the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the 26 ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues 27 involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). 28 1 Having considered those factors, the court finds there are no exceptional circumstances in 2 || this case. Plaintiff states that he has been found incompetent in state court in 2011 and 2016. As 3 | the court has already informed plaintiff, to justify appointment of counsel based on health 4 | limitations, a plaintiff must present evidence documenting those limitations as well as evidence 5 | that the limitations significantly impair the plaintiff’s ability to litigate the case. Brown v. Reif, 6 | No. 2:18-cv-01088 KJM CKD P, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33310, at *6-8 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2019) 7 || (and cases cited therein). Plaintiff has not presented any evidence substantiating his claims of 8 || impairment. 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs request for appointment of 10 || counsel (ECF No. 35) is denied without prejudice. Datu EBL 12 | Dated: February 12, 2024 ZA LE i +LHECAU, B EDMUND F. BRENNAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(PC) Epps v. Archie, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pc-epps-v-archie-caed-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack