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)
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?