(PC) Morgan v. Sacramento County Sheriffs Dept. et al

Filing 142

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota on 7/29/22 DENYING 141 Motion to Appoint Counsel. On the Court's own motion, the deadline to respond to the June 22, 2022, findings and recommendations is extended to 20 days from the date of this order. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SAMMY DAVIS MORGAN,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:19-CV-1179-KJM-DMC-P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

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

17
18

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to

19

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion, ECF No. 141, for the

20

appointment of counsel.

21

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

22

require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. See Mallard v. United States Dist.

23

Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the

24

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

25

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

26

A finding of “exceptional circumstances” requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success

27

on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims on his own in light of the

28

complexity of the legal issues involved. See Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017. Neither factor is
1

1

dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision. See id. In Terrell, the

2

Ninth Circuit concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion with respect to appointment

3

of counsel because:

4

. . . Terrell demonstrated sufficient writing ability and legal knowledge to
articulate his claim. The facts he alleged and the issues he raised were not
of substantial complexity. The compelling evidence against Terrell made it
extremely unlikely that he would succeed on the merits.

5
6

Id. at 1017.

7
8
9

In the present case, the Court does not at this time find the required exceptional
circumstances. Notably, Plaintiff does not outline any circumstances to justify the appointment of

10

counsel, let alone circumstances which could be considered exceptional. See ECF No. 141.

11

Plaintiff merely states that his claims have merit and that counsel is necessary “to the preparation

12

of Plaintiff [sic] further arguments. . . .” Id. A review of the docket in this case reflects that

13

Plaintiff has been able to articulate his claims successfully on his own. Further, this Court has

14

recommended this action proceed on Plaintiff’s excessive force claim, which is neither factually

15

nor legally complex.

16

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

17

1.

Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel, ECF No. 141, is denied;

2.

On the Court’s own motion, the deadline to respond to the June 22, 2022,

18
19
20

and

findings and recommendations is extended to 20 days from the date of this order.

21
22

Dated: July 29, 2022
____________________________________
DENNIS M. COTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2