Windham v. California Medical Facility, et al
Filing
37
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 8/26/16 DENYING 35 Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Dillon, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
SAMUEL WINDHAM, JR.,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
No. 2:15-cv-1058 MCE CKD P
v.
ORDER
CALIFORNIA MEDICAL FACILITY, et
al.,
16
Defendants.
17
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has requested
18
19
appointment of counsel. The court cannot require an attorney to represent a plaintiff who cannot
20
pay for the attorney’s services. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989).
21
However, under the federal in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the court may request
22
that an attorney represent a person unable to afford counsel. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). The court
23
will make that request only when there are exceptional circumstances. When determining
24
whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court considers, among other things, plaintiff's
25
likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro
26
se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970
27
(9th Cir. 2009). While the court is aware of the difficulties attendant to litigating an action while
28
/////
1
1
incarcerated, circumstances common to most prisoners do not establish “exceptional
2
circumstances.”
3
4
5
In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances at this
stage of these proceedings.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for appointment of
6
counsel (ECF No. 35) is denied without prejudice.
7
Dated: August 26, 2016
_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
8
9
10
11
12
13
1
wind1058.coun
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?