Hardy v. Davis et al
Filing
41
ORDER denying 39 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 03/21/15. (Plummer, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
KRISTIN HARDY,
12
No. 2:13-cv-0726 JAM DAD P
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
C. DAVIS, et al.,
15
ORDER
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 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.
3
By order filed April 23, 2013, the court denied plaintiff’s previous request for
4
appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 4.) Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that any exceptional
5
circumstances justifying appointment of counsel have arisen in the interim
6
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s March 9, 2015 motion for the
7
appointment of counsel (ECF No. 39) is denied.
8
Dated: March 21, 2015
9
10
11
12
DAD:10/md
hard0726.31.2nd
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?