Langston v. Reyes et al

Filing 12

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/21/12 denying 11 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Furthermore, plaintiff is advised that any further documents filed by him will be disregarded and no further orders will issue in response to future filings in light of the fact that this action was dismissed and closed on August 3, 2011. (Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

WALTER LANGSTON,
Plaintiff,

11
vs.

12
13

No. 2:11-cv-1662 DAD P

ARTURO REYES et al.,
Defendants.

14

ORDER
/

15

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action. On

16
17

November 9, 2012, plaintiff requested appointment of counsel. Plaintiff is advised that back on

18

August 3, 2011, the court issued order dismissing this case without prejudice. Judgment was

19

entered that same day and this civil rights action was closed.
Moreover, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack

20
21

authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. See Mallard v.

22

United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the

23

district court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).

24

See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d

25

1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990).

26

/////
1

1

The test for exceptional circumstances requires the court to evaluate the plaintiff’s

2

likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s November 9, 2012 (Dkt.

9

No. 11) for appointment of counsel is DENIED. Furthermore, plaintiff is advised that any further

10

documents filed by him will be disregarded and no further orders will issue in response to future

11

filings in light of the fact that this action was dismissed and closed on August 3, 2011.

12

DATED: November 21, 2012.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19

DAD1:dpw
lang1662.31

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2