Epps v. CSP Sacramento
Filing
16
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 12/3/14 DENYING 15 Motion to Appoint Counsel; Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall submit the documents specified in the courts October 24, 2014 order at page 5, 6. (Dillon, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ROBERT EPPS,
12
13
14
15
No. 2:14-cv-1347 MCE AC P
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
CSP SACRAMENTO, et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights
18
action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 24, 2014, the court screened the complaint (ECF
19
No. 8), and ordered plaintiff to submit service documents within 30 days. ECF No. 9. Plaintiff
20
has instead filed a motion for appointment of counsel. The motion will be denied.
21
District courts may not require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases.
22
Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, where willing counsel
23
is available, the district court “may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford
24
counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101,
25
1103 (9th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1128 (2005).
26
The district court may appoint such counsel where “exceptional circumstances” exist.
27
Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 559 U.S. 906 (2010) (citing
28
Agyeman, 390 F.3d at 1103). In determining whether or not exceptional circumstances exist, “a
1
1
court must consider ‘the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner
2
to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Palmer,
3
560 F.3d at 970 (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). Circumstances
4
common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not
5
establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of
6
counsel. See, e.g., Guess v. Lopez, 2014 WL 1883875 at *5 (E.D. Cal. 2014) (Claire, M.J.). The
7
court does not find exceptional circumstances in this case, at this time.
8
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
9
1. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 15) is DENIED.
10
2. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall submit the documents
11
specified in the court’s October 24, 2014 order at page 5, ¶ 6.
12
DATED: December 3, 2014
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
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?