Singanonh v. Fine et al

Filing 13

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 4/30/2019 DENYING plaintiff's 12 motion for 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

TIENGKHAM SINGANONH,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:18-cv-1824 AC P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

R. FINE, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18
19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

“When determining whether ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist, a court must consider ‘the

25

likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims

26

pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965,

27

970 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). The burden

28

of demonstrating exceptional circumstances is on the plaintiff. Id. Circumstances common to
1

1

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

2

exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel.

3

Plaintiff seeks appointment of counsel on the grounds that he is indigent, his ability to

4

litigate is limited by his imprisonment and lack of access to a law library, and an attorney would

5

be better able to apply the law and present evidence at trial. These are circumstances are common

6

to most prisoners and do not establish the exceptional circumstances necessary for appointment of

7

counsel. Furthermore, it is not clear that this case will proceed to trial and at this stage, plaintiff

8

appears capable of articulating his claims without the assistance of counsel.

9

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

10

counsel (ECF No. 12) is denied.

11

DATED: April 30, 2019

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2