Eiland v. Sacramento County Main Jail Medical Facility et al

Filing 51

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 9/15/2020 DENYING without prejudice plaintiff's 46 motion for the appointment of counsel. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RODNEY CHARLES EILAND,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. 2:18-cv-1042 MCE KJN P

v.

ORDER

SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a former county jail inmate,1 proceeding pro se in an action brought under 42

18
19

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff requests that the court appoint counsel. Defendants Tam and Walden

20

oppose the motion. On June 3, 2020, the undersigned recommended that defendants Tam and

21

Walden be granted summary judgment. On August 7, 2020, the district court adopted the

22

findings and recommendations. On August 12, 2020, plaintiff was granted sixty days in which to

23

show cause why the Doe defendants should not be dismissed and this action terminated based on

24

his failure to timely seek leave to amend to add new defendants or to file an amended complaint.

25

////

26

1

27
28

Plaintiff was housed at the Sacramento County Jail from about February 19, 2016, through late
July 2017. (ECF No. 48 at 2.) He filed a change of address on July 8, 2019, reflecting a change
of address from the Golden State Modified Community Correctional Facility at McFarland, CA,
to 5741 28th Street, Sacramento, CA. (ECF No. 33.)
1

1

District courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section

2

1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional

3

circumstances, the court may request an attorney to voluntarily represent such a plaintiff. See 28

4

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v.

5

Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). When determining whether “exceptional

6

circumstances” exist, the court must consider plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits as

7

well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the

8

legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (district court did not

9

abuse discretion in declining to appoint counsel). The burden of demonstrating exceptional

10

circumstances is on the plaintiff. Id. Circumstances common to most prisoners, such as lack of

11

legal education and limited law library access, do not establish exceptional circumstances that

12

warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel.

13

Having considered the factors under Palmer, the court finds that plaintiff has failed to

14

meet his burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of

15

counsel at this time.

16

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

17

counsel (ECF No. 46) is denied without prejudice.

18

Dated: September 15, 2020

19
20
/eila1042.31

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2