Dearwester v. Sacramento County Sheriff's Department et al

Filing 25

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/06/15 granting 22 Motion for Extension of time. Plaintiff is granted 30 days from the date of service of this order in which to file an opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss. Defendants shall file any reply in accordance with Local Rule 230(l). Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel 23 is denied. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

FRANK LEE DEARWESTER,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:13-cv-2066 MCE DAD P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT,
Defendant.

17
18
19
20

Plaintiff has requested an extension of time to file an opposition to defendants’ November
24, 2014 motion to dismiss. Good cause appearing, the court will grant plaintiff’s request.
Plaintiff has also filed a motion for appointment of counsel. The United States Supreme

21

Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners

22

in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain

23

exceptional circumstances, the district court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel

24

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991);

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

6

1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (Doc. No. 22) is granted;

7

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order in which to file an

8

opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss. Defendants shall file any reply in accordance with

9

Local Rule 230(l); and

10
11

3. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 23) is denied.
Dated: January 6, 2015

12
13
14

DAD:9
dear2066.36opp

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