Cordero v. Guzman et al
Filing
73
ORDER denying 70 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 06/26/15. (Plummer, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
RANDY M. CORDERO,
12
13
14
15
No. 2:13-cv-1551 JAM KJN P
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
NICK GUZMAN, et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
18
Plaintiff requests that the court appoint counsel. District courts lack authority to require counsel
19
to represent indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490
20
U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional circumstances, the court may request an attorney to
21
voluntarily represent such a plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d
22
1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990).
23
When determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court must consider plaintiff’s
24
likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro
25
se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970
26
(9th Cir. 2009) (district court did not abuse discretion in declining to appoint counsel). The
27
burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances is on the plaintiff. Id. Circumstances
28
common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not
1
1
2
establish exceptional circumstances that warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel.
Having considered the factors under Palmer, the court finds that plaintiff has failed to
3
meet his burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of
4
counsel at this time. While the undersigned has separately scheduled an evidentiary hearing to
5
address whether plaintiff administratively exhausted his claims against defendant Parra, the issues
6
to be addressed at the evidentiary hearing are not complex. Plaintiff has competently represented
7
himself in this action and does not require appointment of counsel for the evidentiary hearing.
8
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s May 18, 2015 motion for the
9
10
appointment of counsel (ECF No. 70) is denied without prejudice.
Dated: June 26, 2015
11
12
cord1551.31.kjn
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?