Trujillo v. Hithe

Filing 97

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 9/12/2017 DENYING without prejudice plaintiff's 95 motion to appoint counsel. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GUILLERMO CRUZ TRUJILLO,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:14-cv-00584 JAM AC P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

HITHE, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Guillermo Cruz Trujillo (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this action

18

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has filed a motion for appointment of counsel. ECF No. 95.

19

He argues that the appointment of counsel is necessary because his imprisonment will limit his

20

ability to litigate this case. Id. at 1. He contends appointment of counsel will assist him with

21

filing motions and briefs, obtaining evidence, and cross-examining opposing witnesses. Id.

22

District courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section

23

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

24

circumstances, the court may request an attorney to voluntarily to represent such a plaintiff. See

25

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

26

Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). When determining whether “exceptional

27

circumstances” exist, the court must consider the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the

28

ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues
1

1

involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). The court does not find that

2

exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of counsel exist at this time. See Rand v.

3

Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997) (finding no abuse of discretion under 28 U.S.C. §

4

1915(e) where pro se prisoner was denied counsel despite the fact that he “may well have fared

5

better-particularly in the realms of discovery and the securing of expert testimony.”). Thus far

6

plaintiff has demonstrated an ability to adequately represent his interests. If, due to his

7

incarceration, he needs additional time to meet court deadlines he may move for reasonable

8

extensions of time. The court may reconsider appointment of counsel if exceptional

9

circumstances present themselves at a later stage of the proceedings.

10

It is THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (ECF No. 95) is

11

DENIED without prejudice.

12

DATED: September 12, 2017

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