Valenzuela v. CSP Sacramento et al

Filing 30

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 07/24/17 denying 28 Motion to Appoint Counsel and granting 28 Motion for Extension of time. Plaintiff is granted 30 days from the date of this order in which to respond to the subpoena dated 5/26/17. (Plummer, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 SANTOS VALENZUELA, 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 14 15 v. No. 2:16-cv-1814 CKD P ORDER CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON SACRAMENTO, et al., Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 18 Plaintiff requests that the court appoint counsel. District courts lack authority to require counsel 19 to represent indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 20 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional circumstances, the court may request an attorney to 21 voluntarily represent such a plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 22 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). 23 When determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court must consider plaintiff’s 24 likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro 25 se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 26 (9th Cir. 2009) (district court did not abuse discretion in declining to appoint counsel). The 27 burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances is on the plaintiff. Id. Circumstances 28 common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not 1 1 2 establish exceptional circumstances that warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. Having considered the factors under Palmer, the court finds that plaintiff has failed to 3 meet his burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of 4 counsel at this time. 5 6 Additionally, plaintiff has requested an extension of time to respond to a subpoena dated May 26, 2017. Good cause appearing that request will be granted. 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 1. Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 28) is denied; 9 2. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time (ECF No. 28) is granted; and 10 3. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to respond to the 11 subpoena dated May 26, 2017. 12 Dated: July 24, 2017 _____________________________________ CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 1/bh vale1814.31+36 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?