Tunstall, Jr. v. Virga, et al.

Filing 16

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/27/15 ORDERING that plaintiffs motions for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 12 , 13 , 14 , and 15 ) are DENIED. (Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROBERT WILLIAM TUNSTALL, JR.,

12

No. 2:14-cv-2220 DAD P

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

T. VIRGA, et al.,

15

ORDER

Defendants.

16
17
18
19

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action, has requested
appointment of counsel.
The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not
1

1

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

2

counsel. In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances.

3

Plaintiff also moves the court, due to his recent transfer to California Medical Facility and

4

issues relating to his health, to be relieved of the responsibility of responding to any court orders

5

until at least July 10, 2015. (ECF No. 14.) While the court declines to grant plaintiff’s motion, as

6

unforeseen events may require a more immediate response from plaintiff, the court will

7

nevertheless take plaintiff’s request into account in setting future deadlines for plaintiff in this

8

matter.

9

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motions for

10

the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 12, 13, 14, and 15) are denied.

11

Dated: April 27, 2015

12
13
14
15

DAD:10/md
tuns2220.31

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