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
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?