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