Turner v. California Forensic Medical Group et al

Filing 133

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 3/26/14 DENYING 83 , 96 amd 102 motions to appoint counsel.(Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANTHONY R. TURNER,

12
13
14

No. 2:09-CV-3040-GEB-CMK-P

Plaintiff,
vs.

ORDER

CALIFORNIA FORENSIC MEDICAL
GROUP, et al.,

15
Defendants.
16
17

/
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

18

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court are several motions plaintiff has filed requesting

19

the appointment of counsel (Docs. 83, 96, 102).

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

(9th Cir. 1990). A finding of “exceptional circumstances” requires an evaluation of both the

26

likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims on his
1

1

own in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017.

2

Neither factor is dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision. See

3

id.

4

In the present case, the court does not at this time find the required exceptional

5

circumstances. First, the plaintiff has so far been able to adequately articulate his claims, which

6

are not overly complex. Second, the undersigned has issued findings and recommendations that

7

the defendants’ motion to dismiss this action be granted, for plaintiff’s failure to follow court

8

orders and rules, and to adequately participate in the discovery process. As such, there does not

9

appear to be any likelihood of success on the merits at this time.

10
11

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for the
appointment of counsel (Docs. 83, 96, 102) are denied.

12
13
14
15

DATED: March 26, 2014
______________________________________
CRAIG M. KELLISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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