Brewer v. Grossbaum et al

Filing 80

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 5/19/2014 DENYING plaintiff's 79 motion for 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

KEVIN D. BREWER,

12
13

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

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

14

YOSSI GROSSBAUM, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19

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 ruled that

20

district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases.

21

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

22

circumstances, the district court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28

23

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

24

Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990).

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). 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 would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of

3

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

4

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

5

counsel (Doc. No. 79) is denied.

6

Dated: May 19, 2014

7
8
9
10

DAD:9
brew1555.31(2)

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2