Brewer v. Grossbaum et al

Filing 53

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 6/13/13 DENYING 49 and 52 Motions 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

KEVIN D. BREWER,

11
12
13
14

Plaintiff,
vs.
YOSSI GROSSBAUM, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16
17

No. 2:12-cv-1555 WBS DAD P

ORDER
/

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action, has filed two
motions for 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.

5

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

6

of counsel (Doc. Nos. 49 & 52) are denied.

7

DATED: June 13, 2013.

8
9
10
11
12

DAD:9:kly
brew1555.31

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