(PC) Hudson v. Neuschmid

E.D. California

(PC) Hudson v. Neuschmid

DecidedMay 4, 2020

Docket2:20-cv-00483

StatusUnknown

This text of (PC) Hudson v. Neuschmid ((PC) Hudson v. Neuschmid) 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) Hudson v. Neuschmid, (E.D. Cal. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TORIANO GERMAINE HUDSON, No. 2:20-cv-0483-EFB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 ROBERT NEUSCHMID, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. He requests the appointment of counsel. 19 District courts may authorize the appointment of counsel to represent an indigent civil 20 litigant in certain exceptional circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 21 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir.1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335–36 (9th Cir.1990); 22 Richards v. Harper, 864 F.2d 85, 87 (9th Cir. 1988). In considering whether exceptional 23 circumstances exist, the court must evaluate (1) the plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits; 24 and (2) the ability of the plaintiff to articulate her claims pro se in light of the complexity of the 25 legal issues involved. Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017. The court cannot conclude that plaintiff’s 26 likelihood of success, the complexity of the issues, or the degree of plaintiff’s ability to articulate 27 his claims amount to exceptional circumstances justifying the appointment of counsel at this time. 28 ///// wOAOe 2 VEETOVWT RT BP MMVUETTOCTIL te PR Ue PAY eV

1 The court notes that on April 3, 2020, plaintiff was directed to submit a signed complaint 2 || and in forma pauperis application within thirty days. The court will plaintiff an extension of time 3 || to comply with that order. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. Plaintiffs request for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 11) is denied; and 6 2. Plaintiff shall file his signed complaint and in forma pauperis application within thirty 7 days from the date of service of this order. Failure to comply may result in an order 8 closing this case. 9 | DATED: May 4, 2020. tid, PDEA 10 EDMUND F. BRENNAN 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12 13 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 TORIANO GERMAINE HUDSON, No. 2:20-cv-0483-EFB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 ROBERT NEUSCHMID, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. He requests the appointment of counsel. 19 District courts may authorize the appointment of counsel to represent an indigent civil 20 litigant in certain exceptional circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 21 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir.1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335–36 (9th Cir.1990); 22 Richards v. Harper, 864 F.2d 85, 87 (9th Cir. 1988). In considering whether exceptional 23 circumstances exist, the court must evaluate (1) the plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits; 24 and (2) the ability of the plaintiff to articulate her claims pro se in light of the complexity of the 25 legal issues involved. Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017. The court cannot conclude that plaintiff’s 26 likelihood of success, the complexity of the issues, or the degree of plaintiff’s ability to articulate 27 his claims amount to exceptional circumstances justifying the appointment of counsel at this time. 28 ///// wOAOe 2 VEETOVWT RT BP MMVUETTOCTIL te PR Ue PAY eV

1 The court notes that on April 3, 2020, plaintiff was directed to submit a signed complaint 2 || and in forma pauperis application within thirty days. The court will plaintiff an extension of time 3 || to comply with that order. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. Plaintiffs request for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 11) is denied; and 6 2. Plaintiff shall file his signed complaint and in forma pauperis application within thirty 7 days from the date of service of this order. Failure to comply may result in an order 8 closing this case. 9 | DATED: May 4, 2020. tid, PDEA 10 EDMUND F. BRENNAN 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(PC) Hudson v. Neuschmid, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pc-hudson-v-neuschmid-caed-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack