Snow v. Kay

Filing 27

ORDER Denying 25 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 12/05/2016. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILLIAM L. SNOW,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
DOCTOR SHWE,

15

Defendant.

16

ORDER DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE,
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT
OF COUNSEL
[ECF No. 25]

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, filed December

19
20

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01606-SAB (PC)

Plaintiff William L. Snow is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2, 2016.

21

Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v.

22

Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require any attorney to represent

23

plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern

24

District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the court

25

may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at

26

1525.

27

///

28

///
1

Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek

1
2

volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether

3

“exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on the

4

merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the

5

legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
The test for exceptional circumstances requires the Court to evaluate the Plaintiff’s likelihood

6
7

of success on the merits and the ability of the Plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the

8

complexity of the legal issues involved. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir.

9

1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Circumstances common to most

10

prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not establish exceptional

11

circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. In the present case,

12

the Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims or respond to the Court’s

13

orders. Although Plaintiff submits that he is legally blind, Plaintiff’s eyesight appears sufficient

14

enough to prepare and file legal documents in this case. Plaintiff is advised that he is not precluded

15

from renewing the motion for appointment of counsel at a later stage of the proceedings, if

16

appropriate. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel will be DENIED without

17

prejudice.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

Dated:

21

December 5, 2016
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2