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