Bartee

(PC) Wooten v. Bartee

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaAugust 16, 20242:24-cv-02013California335 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JAMES DOUGLAS WOOTEN, No. 2:24-cv-02013-EFB (PC) Plaintiff, v. ORDER CHRISTIE BARTEE, Defendant. 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff requests that the court appoint counsel. District courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional circumstances, the court may request an attorney to voluntarily represent such a plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). When determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court must consider plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.