Barron v. Martel et al

Filing 52

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 04/29/14 denying 50 Motion to Appoint Counsel and granting in part 51 Motion for Extension of time. Plaintiff is granted 30 days from the date of service of this order in which to file an opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment. Defendants' reply, if any, shall be filed and served in accordance with Locarl Rule 230(l). The court's 04/02/14 order to show cause is discharged. (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 the
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

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

Plaintiff has also requested a sixty-day extension of time to file his opposition to

4

defendants’ motion for summary judgment pursuant to the court’s order of April 2, 2014. Good

5

cause appearing, the court will grant plaintiff’s motion in part and allow him an additional thirty

6

days to file his opposition to defendants’ motion.

7

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

8

1. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 50) is denied;

9

2. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (Doc. No. 51) is granted in part;

10

3. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order in which to file an

11

opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Defendants’ reply, if any, shall be filed

12

and served in accordance with Local Rule 230(l); and

13
14

4. The court’s April 2, 2014 order to show cause is discharged.
Dated: April 29, 2014

15
16
17

DAD:9:kly
barr1567.31+36opp

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