Barron v. Martel et al

Filing 44

ORDER denying 43 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/25/13. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RONNIE E. BARRON,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:10-cv-1567 WBS DAD P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

M. MARTEL, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18
19

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action, has requested
appointment of counsel.
The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require

20

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

21

U.S. 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

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

27

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

28

common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not
1

1

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

2

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

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of

4

counsel (Doc. No. 43) is denied.

5

Dated: November 25, 2013

6
7
8
9
10

DAD:9:kly
barr1567.31

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2