Aguirre v. Lopez et al

Filing 36

ORDER denying 28 Renewed Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by District Judge Frank R. Zapata on 7/20/2010. (Vasquez, J)

(PC) Aguirre v. Lopez et al

Doc. 36

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 P la in tif f Richard Arthur Aguirre, confined in the Kern Valley State Prison (KVSP) in Delano, California, filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 a lle g in g , inter alia, Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment rights were violated when Defendants d e p riv e d him of outdoor exercise from September 29, 2007 to July 9, 2008. T h e action is proceeding only as to Count One of the Second Amended Complaint a g a in s t Defendants Lopez, Adams, Fields, Jennings and Kavanaugh. T h e Court's original screening order, filed March 24, 2009, denied Plaintiff's initial m o tio n for appointment of counsel based on the Court's finding that this action presents no " e x c e p tio n a l circumstances" requiring the appointment of counsel and that Plaintiff is in no d if f e re n t a position than other pro se litigants who have brought nearly identical claims. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's renewed motion for appointment of counsel, a lle g in g exceptional circumstances due to Plaintiff's medical condition and medical tre a tm e n t. vs. R . Lopez; D. Adams; F. Fields; M. Jennings; and J. Kavanaugh, Richard Aguirre, Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) N o . CV 1-08-980-FRZ ORDER I N THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

C o u n s e l will only be appointed in a civil rights action in which there exists " e x c e p tio n a l circumstances." Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1 1 0 3 (9th Cir. 2004); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.3d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wilborn v. E sc a ld e r o n , 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). "A finding of the exceptional

c irc u m s ta n c e s of the plaintiff seeking assistance requires at least an evaluation of the lik e lih o o d of the plaintiff's success on the merits and an evaluation of the plaintiff's ability to articulate his claims `in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.'" Agyeman, 3 9 0 F.3d at 1103 (citing Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331 (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 9 5 2 , 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). Plaintiff is able to articulate his claims on the issues presented and h is assertions fail to establish the existence of the requisite exceptional circumstances for a p p o in tm e n t of counsel. Accordingly, Plaintiff's renewed motion shall be denied. IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Appointment of Counsel [Doc. 2 8 ] is DENIED.

D A T E D this 20 th day of July, 2010.

-2-