Garcia v. Grether et al

Filing 20

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 1/3/2017 DENYING plaintiff's 18 motion for appointment of counsel. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

JOSE GARCIA,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13

No. 2:16-cv-1915 CKD P

v.

ORDER

K. GRETHER, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has requested

16
17

appointment of counsel. The court cannot require an attorney to represent a plaintiff who cannot

18

pay for the attorney’s services. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989).

19

However, under the federal in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the court may request

20

that an attorney represent a person unable to afford counsel. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). The court

21

will make that request only when there are exceptional circumstances. When determining

22

whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court considers, among other things, plaintiff's

23

likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro

24

se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970

25

(9th Cir. 2009). While the court is aware of the difficulties attendant to litigating an action while

26

incarcerated, circumstances common to most prisoners do not establish “exceptional

27

circumstances.”

28

/////

1

In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances at this

2

stage of these proceedings. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for

3

the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 18) is denied.

4

Dated: January 3, 2017

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5
6
7
8
9
10

1/mp
garc1915.31

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