Jones v. Kuppinger et al

Filing 42

ORDER denying 41 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 08/19/14. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

HENRY A. JONES,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:13-cv-0451 WBS AC P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

P. KUPPINGER, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18
19

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action, has requested
appointment of counsel.
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 Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th

27

Cir. 2009) (district court did not abuse discretion in declining to appoint counsel); see also.

28

Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952,
1

1

954 (9th Cir. 1983). Circumstances common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education

2

and limited law library access, do not establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a

3

request for voluntary assistance of counsel. In the present case, the court does not find the

4

required exceptional circumstances.

5

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s August 11, 2014 motion for the

6

appointment of counsel (ECF No. 41) is denied.

7

DATED: August 19, 2014

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2