Price v. C&PR et al
Filing
44
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 3/20/2018 DENYING without prejudice plaintiff's 42 motion for the appointment of counsel and for the production of documents. (Yin, K)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
IMMANUEL CHRISTIAN PRICE,
12
13
14
15
No. 2:17-cv-0382 TLN KJN P
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
C&PR, et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se, in an action brought under 42 U.S.C.
18
§ 1983. Plaintiff requests that the court appoint counsel, and allow him to obtain certain
19
documents. Plaintiff argues that the issues in this case are complex, and that he “is not in a
20
position to present several documents . . . essential to this court’s fair consideration.” (ECF No.
21
42 at 2.) Plaintiff seeks to obtain the federal receiver’s exclusion policy as modified and adopted
22
by the CDCR in June of 2013, and several declarations accepted by the Plata court from cocci
23
experts. Plaintiff argues such evidence is compelling and supports his claims in this action. See
24
Plata v. Brown, 2013 WL 3200587 (N.D. Cal. June 24, 2013).)
25
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 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 plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits as
3
well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the
4
legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (district court did not
5
abuse discretion in declining to appoint counsel). The burden of demonstrating exceptional
6
circumstances is on the plaintiff. Id. Circumstances common to most prisoners, such as lack of
7
legal education and limited law library access, do not establish exceptional circumstances that
8
warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel.
9
On February 26, 2018, the undersigned recommended that defendants’ motion for
10
judgment on the pleadings be granted on grounds of qualified immunity. Thus, the recommended
11
dismissal of this action is based on the unsettled state of the law, not a failure of proof or evidence
12
to support plaintiff’s position. (ECF No. 39 at 8.) The undersigned is well aware of the serious
13
nature of Valley Fever, or cocci, and the risk it poses to individuals, particularly those with
14
compromised immune systems. Nevertheless, having considered the factors under Palmer,
15
including whether or not plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits, the court finds that plaintiff
16
has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances warranting the
17
appointment of counsel at this time. Thus, plaintiff’s motion and his request for production of
18
documents is denied.
19
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of
20
counsel and for the production of documents (ECF No. 42) is denied without prejudice.
21
Dated: March 20, 2018
22
23
pric0382.31+
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?