Bridges v. Hubbard et al

Filing 97

ORDER denying 96 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 01/02/13. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

WILLIE BRIDGES,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14

vs.
SUZAN L. HUBBARD, et al.,
Defendants.

17

ORDER
/

15
16

No. 2:09-cv-0940 GEB DAD P

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action, has filed a
second request for the appointment of counsel.

18

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to

19

require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist.

20

Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the district court may

21

request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v.

22

Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36

23

(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

light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328,
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

counsel. In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances.

5

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s November 21, 2012

6

motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 96) is denied.

7

DATED: January 2, 2013.

8
9
10
11
12

DAD:mp
brid0940.31.sec

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2