Boston v. Garcia et al

Filing 45

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 6/5/12 DENYING 43 Motion 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

ANDRE’ BOSTON,
Plaintiff,

11
12

vs.

13

No. 2:10-cv-1782 KJM DAD P

V. GARCIA, et al.,

14

Defendants.
/

15
16
17
18

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action, has
requested appointment of counsel.
As the court previously advised plaintiff, the United States Supreme Court has

19

ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in

20

§ 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain

21

exceptional circumstances, the district court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel

22

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991);

23

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

5
6

of counsel (Doc. No. 43) is denied.

7

DATED: June 5, 2012.

8
9
10
11
12

DAD:md
bost1782.31

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