Franklin v. Foulk
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 2/7/2018 DENYING as moot plaintiff's 109 motion for an extension of time to file objections and DENYING without prejudice plaintiff's 97 motion for the appointment of counsel. (Yin, K)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JOHNNY L. FRANKLIN,
No. 2:14-cv-0057 KJM DB P
F. FOULK, et al.,
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding in pro se and in forma pauperis in an action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Presently before the court is plaintiff’s motion for an extension of
time to file objections to the courts findings and recommendations (ECF No. 108) and plaintiff’s
motion to appoint counsel (ECF No. 97).
Motion for an Extension of Time
Plaintiff requested an extension of time to file objections to the court’s December 12,
2017, findings and recommendations. (ECF NO. 109.) Before the court ruled on his motion for
an extension of time, plaintiff filed objections to the court’s findings and recommendations.
(ECF No. 110.) Accordingly, the court will deny as moot plaintiff’s motion for an extension of
time to file objections.
Motion to Appoint Counsel
Plaintiff requests that the court appoint counsel. (ECF No. 97.) In support of his motion
to appoint counsel plaintiff argues he is incarcerated, lacks income to employ counsel, has limited
access to the law library, and has no legal education.
The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require
counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490
U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the district court may request the
voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d
1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990).
The test for exceptional circumstances requires the court to evaluate the plaintiff’s
likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in
light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328,
1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Circumstances
common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not
establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of
The court finds that plaintiff has not established the existence of exceptional
circumstances that would warrant the appointment of counsel because he has failed to allege facts
showing anything more than circumstances common to most prisoners.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file objections (ECF No. 109) is denied as
2. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 97) is denied without
Dated: February 7, 2018
DLB1/Orders/ Prisoner-civil rights/fran0057.eot4obj.31
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?