Besoyan v. Yee et al

Filing 9

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 5/18/17: 8 Motion to Appoint Counsel is denied. However, the court will grant plaintiff until June 30, 2017 to file an amended complaint. Request to file electronically is denied. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHAEL J. BESOYAN,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:16-cv-46-TLN-EFB PS

v.

ORDER

SACRAMENTO COUNTY, et al,

15

Defendants.

16
On May 16, 2017, plaintiff filed a letter in which he requests that he be appointed counsel

17
18

or, alternatively, be granted additional time to file an amended complaint.1 ECF No. 8.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) authorizes the appointment of counsel to represent an indigent

19
20

civil litigant in certain exceptional circumstances. See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017

21

(9th Cir.1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335–36 (9th Cir.1990); Richards v.

22

Harper, 864 F.2d 85, 87 (9th Cir.1988). In considering whether exceptional circumstances exist,

23

the court must evaluate (1) the plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits; and (2) the ability of

24

the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.

25

Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017.

26

/////

27
28

1

This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding in propria persona, was referred to the
undersigned under Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
1

1

The court cannot conclude that plaintiff’s likelihood of success, the complexity of the

2

issues, or the degree of plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claims amount to exceptional

3

circumstances justifying the appointment of counsel at this time. Accordingly, plaintiff’s request

4

for appointment of counsel is denied. However, the court will grant plaintiff until June 30, 2017

5

to file an amended complaint.

6

Plaintiff also requests permission to file documents electrically in this action. ECF No. 8

7

at 8. The Local Rules provide that “[a]ny person appearing pro se may not utilize electronic

8

filing except with the permission of the assigned Judge or Magistrate Judge.” E.D. Cal. L.R.

9

133(b)(2). “Requests to use paper or electronic filing as exceptions from these Rules shall be

10

submitted as stipulations as provided in L.R. 143 or, if a stipulation cannot be had, as written

11

motions setting out an explanation of reasons for the exception. Points and authorities are not

12

required, and no argument or hearing will normally be held.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 133(b)(3).

13

Plaintiff asserts that he should be permitted to file documents electronically because he is

14

currently staying at a property that is “off Grid” to “achieve some peace and clairity [sic] to

15

persue [sic] this case.” ECF No. 8 at 8. He further explains that the nearest “mail drop is about

16

an hour away” from the property. Id. Plaintiff’s explanation fails to provide a sufficient basis for

17

permitting him to file electronically. Accordingly, his request to file electronically is denied.

18
19

So Ordered.
DATED: May 18, 2017.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2