Craver v. Hasty et al

Filing 103

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 6/4/2014 DENYING, without prejudice, plaintiff's 100 motion for the appointment of counsel. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANDRE CRAVER,

12

No. 2:11-cv-1344 TLN KJN P

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

J. HASTY, et al.,

15

ORDER

Defendants.

16
17
18
19

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
This action is set for jury trial before the Honorable Troy L. Nunley on June 23, 2014.
Plaintiff requests that the court appoint counsel. District courts lack authority to require

20

counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist.

21

Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional circumstances, the court may request an attorney

22

to voluntarily to represent such a plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935

23

F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990).

24

When determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court must consider plaintiff’s

25

likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro

26

se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970

27

(9th Cir. 2009) (district court did not abuse discretion in declining to appoint counsel). The

28

burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances is on the plaintiff. Id. Circumstances
1

1

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

2

establish exceptional circumstances that warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel.

3

Having considered the factors under Palmer, the court finds that plaintiff has failed to

4

meet his burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of

5

counsel at this time. The remaining issues in this case are relatively straightforward. Plaintiff has

6

represented himself competently in this action. Under these circumstances, appointment of

7

counsel is not warranted.

8
9
10

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of
counsel (ECF No. 100) is denied without prejudice.
Dated: June 4, 2014

11
12

/Crav1344.31

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