Logan v. Horwitz, et al.

Filing 116

ORDER denying 115 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 03/17/17. (Plummer, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMES DAVID LOGAN, II, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:15-cv-0121 MCE AC P Plaintiff, v. ORDER EVALYN HORWITZ, Defendants. 16 17 18 19 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action, has again requested appointment of counsel. ECF No. 115. This request will again be denied. 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 “When determining whether ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist, a court must consider ‘the 25 likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims 26 pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 27 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). The burden 28 of demonstrating exceptional circumstances is on the plaintiff. Id. Circumstances common to 1 1 most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not establish 2 exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. 3 Plaintiff has not demonstrated any changes in his circumstances since the court last denied 4 his request for counsel, he still has not shown that he has any likelihood of success on the merits, 5 and he continues to be capable of articulating his claims. The court therefore does not find the 6 required exceptional circumstances and plaintiff’s request for counsel will be denied without 7 prejudice. 8 9 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 115) is denied. DATED: March 17, 2017 11 12 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?