Morris v. CSP-Sacramento et al

Filing 23

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 9/5/2019 DENYING 22 Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Henshaw, R)

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

No. 2:17-cv-2286 AC P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

CSP-SACRAMENTO, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights

18

action, has requested appointment of counsel. ECF No. 22. In support of this motion, plaintiff

19

states in part that he has “limited access to legal research,” that he is “unlearned in the matters of

20

law,” that his case is complex, and that he has psychological damage that prevents him from

21

moving forward with this case. See id. at 1.

22

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

counsel. Moreover, given that plaintiff filed the complaint himself and that this is his second

6

request for appointment of counsel to date (see ECF Nos. 1, 13), plaintiff has demonstrated a

7

sufficient understanding of this matter and of what he needs to do to move these proceedings

8

forward. See ECF Nos. 1, 13. For these reasons, the court does not find the required exceptional

9

circumstances.

10

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

11

counsel, filed August 29, 2019 (ECF No. 22), is DENIED.

12

DATED: September 5, 2019

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