Dixon v. Kroenlein

Filing 18

ORDER denying 17 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 09/09/16. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BRUCE M. DIXON,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:15-cv-1039 AC P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

M. KROENLEIN, et al.,
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

“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

mo prisoners such as lac of legal education and limited law library acc
ost
s,
ck
d
w
cess, do not e
establish

2

ex
xceptional cir
rcumstances that would warrant a re
s
equest for vo
oluntary assistance of counsel.

3

Plaintiff cites his la of legal education an limited la library ac
ack
nd
aw
ccess, as wel as the
ll

4

all
leged depriv
vation of his constitution rights and the fact tha defendants will be rep
nal
d
at
s
presented by

5

co
ounsel, as cau for appo
use
ointing couns in this ca
sel
ase. ECF No 17. These circumstances are
o.
e

6

co
ommon to mo prisoners and do not constitute e
ost
s
exceptional c
circumstance Addition
es.
nally,

7

pla
aintiff has al
lready demo
onstrated an ability to art
a
ticulate his c
claims and at this early stage the
t

8

co is unable to evaluate his likeliho of succes For these reasons, th court does not find the
ourt
e
e
ood
ss.
e
he
s
e

9

req
quired excep
ptional circu
umstances at this time.

10

Accord
dingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintif motion f the appoi
S
O
ff’s
for
intment of

11

co
ounsel (ECF No. 17) is denied.
d

12

DA
ATED: Sep
ptember 9, 20
016.

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