Morris v. CSP-Sacramento et al

Filing 15

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 11/22/2017 DENYING 13 Motion to Appoint Counsel. (York, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ORVILLE M. MORRIS,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:17-cv-2286 AC P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON –
SACRAMENTO, et al.,
Defendants.

17
18
19
20

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action, has requested
appointment of counsel.
The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require

21

counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490

22

U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the district court may request the

23

voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d

24

1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990).

25

The test for exceptional circumstances requires the court to evaluate the plaintiff’s

26

likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in

27

light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328,

28

1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Circumstances
1

1

common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not

2

establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of

3

counsel. In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances.

4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of

5

counsel (ECF No. 13) is denied.

6

DATED: November 22, 2017

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2