Dixon v. Oleachea, et al.

Filing 114

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 1/29/21 DENYING 113 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

NATHANIEL DIXON,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:15-cv-2372 KJM AC P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

D. OLEACHEA, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18
19

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action, has requested
appointment of counsel. ECF No. 113.
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

The test for exceptional circumstances requires the court to evaluate the plaintiff’s

25

likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in

26

light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328,

27

1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Circumstances

28

common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not
1

1

establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of

2

counsel.

3

In support of the motion to appoint counsel, plaintiff states in part that the issues in this

4

case are complex; that he will need to present expert witnesses; that conflicting testimony will

5

need to be elicited, and that due to the COVID-19 pandemic, he has no library time to research

6

issues. See ECF No. 113 at 1-2. The court finds that these do not constitute exceptional

7

circumstances.

8
9
10

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of
counsel (ECF No. 113) is DENIED.
DATED: January 29, 2021

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