King v. McDonald et al

Filing 63

ORDER denying 60 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 09/07/12. (Plummer, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JESSE KING, Plaintiff, 11 12 13 14 vs. MIKE MCDONALD, et al., Defendants. 17 ORDER / 15 16 No. 2:10-cv-2797 JAM DAD P Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action, has requested 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. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s August 23, 2012 motion 5 6 for appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 60) is denied. 7 DATED: September 7, 2012. 8 9 10 11 12 DAD:mp king2797.31 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?