Jenkins v. Lares, et al.

Filing 22

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 5/22/17 ORDERING that Plaintiff's 3/31/17 Motion to Amend Evidence 20 is DISMISSED; and Plaintiff's 5/1/17 Request for the Appointment of Counsel 21 is DENIED. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT LEE JENKINS, Jr., 12 13 14 15 No. 2:13-cv-2273 DB P Plaintiff, v. ORDER LARES, et al., Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights 18 action. Plaintiff alleges defendants violated his due process rights in connection with his 19 placement in administrative segregation, retaliated against him for exercising his First 20 Amendment rights, and used excessive force. Before the court are plaintiff’s “Motion to Amend 21 Evidence” and request for appointment of counsel. 22 First, plaintiff’s “Motion to Amend Evidence” seeks to add to his complaint evidence 23 about an investigation into racial discrimination at High Desert State Prison. (ECF No. 20.) 24 Plaintiff is advised that his complaint need not include all evidence necessary to prove his claims. 25 As this case proceeds, plaintiff may be given the opportunity to support his claims with additional 26 evidence. Accordingly, plaintiff’s “Motion to Amend Evidence” will be dismissed. 27 28 Second, plaintiff seeks the appointment of counsel because he has many other cases pending in this district that are keeping him busy and because his case is complex. The United 1 1 States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent 2 indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 3 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the district court may request the voluntary 4 assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 5 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). 6 The test for exceptional circumstances requires the court to evaluate the plaintiff’s 7 likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in 8 light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 9 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Circumstances 10 common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not 11 establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of 12 counsel. In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. 13 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 14 1. Plaintiff’s March 31, 2017 Motion to Amend Evidence (ECF No. 20) is dismissed; 15 16 17 18 and 2. Plaintiff’s May 1, 2017, request for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 21) is denied. Dated: May 22, 2017 19 20 21 22 23 DLB:9 DLB1/prisoner-civil rights/jenk2273.31 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?