Segura v. McDonald, et al

Filing 44

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 6/15/2015 DENYING plaintiff's 43 motion for the appointment of counsel; GRANTING plaintiff's 42 motion for an extension of time ; and plaintiff shall file and serve his opposition on or before 7/29/2015. Defendant's reply, if any, shall be filed within 7 days thereafter. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOSE LUIS SEGURA,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:13-cv-0393 AC P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

MICHAEL MCDONALD, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18
19

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action, has requested
appointment of counsel. ECF No. 43.
The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require

20

counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490

21

U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the district court may request the

22

voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d

23

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

27

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

28

common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not
1

1

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

2

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

3

In addition, plaintiff has filed a motion for extension of time to file and serve an

4

opposition to defendant’s May 15, 2015 motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 42. Good

5

cause appearing, plaintiff’s request is granted.

6

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

7

1.

8

2. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 42) is granted; and

9

3. Plaintiff shall file and serve his opposition on or before July 29, 2015. Defendant’s

10
11

Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 43) is denied;

reply, if any, shall be filed within seven days thereafter.
DATED: June 15, 2015

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