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
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?