Stafford v. Doss et al

Filing 13

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 6/20/2017 DENYING 11 Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Henshaw, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOSEPH ANTHONY STAFFORD,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
vs.

ORDER

DOSS, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18
19

No. 2:16-CV-1403-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, the legal issue involved in the case – whether plaintiff suffered retaliation

5

in violation of the First Amendment – is not complex. Second, plaintiff has demonstrated an

6

ability to articulate his claims sufficiently on his own. Third, plaintiff’s motion sets forth no

7

circumstances which could be considered exceptional. Plaintiff states that he is incarcerated and

8

indigent, circumstances which are common to almost every prisoner case. Finally, at this early

9

stage of the proceeds before service has been ordered, the court cannot say that plaintiff has

10
11
12

demonstrated any particular likelihood of success on the merits of his claims.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for the
appointment of counsel (Doc. 11) is denied.

13
14
15
16

DATED: June 20, 2017
______________________________________
CRAIG M. KELLISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2