Davis v. Reames, et al
Filing
25
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 03/16/18 DENYING 20 Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Plummer, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
DESHAWN DAVIS,
12
13
14
15
Plaintiff,
vs.
ORDER
D. REAMES, et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
18
19
No. 2:15-CV-2027-JAM-CMK-P
/
Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff seeks the appointment of counsel. The United States Supreme Court has
20
ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in
21
§ 1983 cases. See Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain
22
exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to
23
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v.
24
Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). A finding of “exceptional
25
circumstances” requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits and the
26
ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims on his own in light of the complexity of the legal
1
1
issues involved. See Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017. Neither factor is dispositive and both must be
2
viewed together before reaching a decision. See id.
3
In the present case, the court does not at this time find the required exceptional
4
circumstances. First, based on review of plaintiff’s second amended complaint and other filings
5
in this case, it is clear that plaintiff is able to articulate his claims on his own. Second, plaintiff’s
6
cognizable claim that defendants were deliberately indifferent to a known safety risk is not overly
7
complex, either in terms of the applicable law or the facts. Third, the court cannot say at this
8
early stage of the proceedings before defendants have even appeared in the action whether
9
plaintiff has any particular likelihood of success on the merits. Finally, plaintiff’s stated reason
10
for requiring the appointment of counsel – his inability to afford an attorney – is quite common
11
among California prisoners, and is not an exceptional circumstance.
12
13
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for the
appointment of counsel (Doc. 20) is denied.
14
15
16
17
DATED: March 16, 2018
______________________________________
CRAIG M. KELLISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
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?