Kessler v. Sacramento City Police Department et al

Filing 22

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 10/17/2017 DENYING 20 Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Hunt, G)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 WESLEY WILLIAM KESSLER, 11 12 13 14 15 No. 2:16-cv-01930-GEB-AC Plaintiffs, v. ORDER SACRAMENTO CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al, Defendants. 16 17 The court is in receipt of plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel. ECF No. 20. Plaintiff is 18 incarcerated, and is bringing his civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as a self-represented 19 litigant proceeding in forma pauperis. ECF No. 1, 2, 5 and 20. 20 I. Motion 21 Plaintiff requests that the court appoint counsel, asserting that he is not familiar with the 22 legal process and lacks regular access to the prison law library. ECF No. 20 at 2. Plaintiff also 23 asserts that the prison has lost the property he was planning to use as evidence in his case. Id. 24 25 II. Analysis District courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 26 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional 27 circumstances, the court may request an attorney to voluntarily to represent such a plaintiff. See 28 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. 1 1 Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335–36 (9th Cir. 1990). When determining whether “exceptional 2 circumstances” exist, the court must consider the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the 3 ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues 4 involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). 5 Having considered the relevant factors, the court finds there are no exceptional 6 circumstances in this case, and that appointment of counsel is not warranted at this time. 7 Plaintiff’s case is not overly complex. See ECF No. 1. Plaintiff’s alleged difficulty in accessing 8 the law library and his property does not constitute exceptional circumstances. “Circumstances 9 common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not 10 establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of 11 counsel.” Kent v. U.C. Davis Med. Ctr., No. 215CV1924WBSACP, 2016 WL 4208572, at *1 12 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2016). Appointment of counsel therefore is not appropriate. 13 III. Conclusion 14 Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (ECF No. 20) is DENIED. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 DATED: October 17, 2017 17 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?