(PC) Jones v. Wong et al

Filing 41

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 09/11/17 DENYING #37 Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ARTHUR GLENN JONES, SR.,

12
13
14

No. 2:15-cv-0734 GEB AC P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

SAM WONG, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action, has requested

18

appointment of counsel. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack

19

authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United

20

States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the district

21

court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell

22

v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36

23

(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 requests the appointment of counsel to represent him during his deposition on the

4

ground that counsel would enable him to prepare for the deposition more effectively. ECF No. 37

5

at 3. There is no evidence that plaintiff is unable to proceed at a deposition without the assistance

6

of counsel, nor is the taking of his deposition an exceptional circumstance.

7

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of

8

counsel (ECF No. 37) is denied.

9

DATED: September 11, 2017

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2