Espey v. Deuel Vocational Institution

Filing 107

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 3/31/2016 DENYING plaintiff's 106 motion for the appointment of counsel.(Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

FLOYD ESPEY,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. 2:13-cv-2147 TLN KJN P

v.

ORDER

DEUEL VOCATIONAL INSTITUTION,
et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, in an action brought under

19

42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is set for jury trial before the Honorable Troy L. Nunley on August

20

29, 2016.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(c)(1), district courts are granted discretion to appoint counsel for

21
22

indigent persons. However, this discretion may be exercised only under “exceptional

23

circumstances.” Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). “A finding of

24

exceptional circumstances requires the evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits

25

and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal

26

issues involved. Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together before

27

reaching a decision.” Id.

28

////
1

1
2
3

Having considered the factors above, the court finds that plaintiff has failed to meet his
burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of

4

counsel (ECF No. 106) is denied.

5

Dated: March 31, 2016

6
7
8

espe2147.31.kjn

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