Williams v. Daszko et al

Filing 48

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 4/4/16 DENYING 43 Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

HILLIARD WILLIAMS,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:14-cv-1248 KJM AC P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

JAROM A. DASZKO, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights

18

action against two defendant physicians on claims that they were deliberately indifferent to

19

plaintiff’s serious medical needs. Presently pending is plaintiff’s first request for appointment of

20

counsel, which includes several exhibits demonstrating that plaintiff has been unable to obtain the

21

voluntary assistance of counsel based on his own efforts. See ECF No. 43.

22

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require

23

counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490

24

U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the district court may request the

25

voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d

26

1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990).

27

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

28

likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

counsel. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009).

6

In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances at this

7

time. Although this court’s review of this case indicates that plaintiff has a reasonable

8

opportunity of prevailing on the merits of his claims, plaintiff has, to date, adequately

9

demonstrated the ability to articulate his claims pro se. To prevail on his Eighth Amendment

10

claims, plaintiff must present evidence demonstrating that defendants were aware of plaintiff’s

11

need for pain medication while recovering from his burn injuries but denied such relief. To

12

prevail on a claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, a prisoner must

13

demonstrate that a prison official “kn[ew] of and disregard [ed] an excessive risk to inmate health

14

or safety; the official must both be aware of the facts from which the inference could be drawn

15

that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.” Farmer v.

16

Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994).

17
18

With this standard in mind, plaintiff should identify additional evidence that would
support his claims, and formulate his discovery requests accordingly.1

19

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s instant motion for the

20

appointment of counsel, ECF No. 43, is denied without prejudice.

21

DATED: April 4, 2016

22
23
24
25
1

26
27
28

Plaintiff’s discovery requests may include the following: (1) requests for admission (yes-or-no
statements of fact) directed to each defendant, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 36; (2) up to twenty-five
interrogatories (questions) directed to each defendant, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 33; and (3) requests for
copies of documents, electronically stored information, or other tangible evidence directed to
each defendant, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 34.
2