Langley v. Tulare Police Department et al

Filing 45

ORDER DENYING 41 Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/19/2017. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RANDY LANGLEY,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 1:16-cv-00336-DAD-SKO

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO APPOINT COUNSEL

v.
TULARE POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al.,

(Doc. No. 41)

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action, has requested

17
18

appointment of counsel.1 (Doc. No. 41.)
The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require

19
20

counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490

21

296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the district court may request the

22

voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d

23

1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335–36 (9th Cir. 1990).

24

The test for exceptional circumstances requires the court to evaluate the plaintiff’s

25

likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in

26

1

27
28

Plaintiff also indicates that he has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this action.
(Doc. No. 41 at 1.) However, the docket in this case does not reflect an application to proceed in
forma pauperis filed by plaintiff to date. In any event, plaintiff paid the civil case filing fee in the
amount of $400.00 on March 10, 2016.
1

1

light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328,

2

1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Circumstances

3

common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not

4

establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of

5

counsel.

6

Given that the discovery deadline in this action is December 1, 2017, dispositive motions

7

are not due until March 2, 2018, and a pre-trial conference has been scheduled for June 16, 2018,

8

the court cannot adequately assess the complexity of plaintiff’s case at this time in order to

9

determine whether exceptional circumstances exist which would justify seeking counsel willing

10
11

to represent plaintiff in this action on a pro bono basis.
Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (Doc. No. 41) is denied at this time

12

without prejudice to its renewal at a later stage of this litigation.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

Dated:

April 19, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2