(PC) Ardds v. Martin et al

Filing 92

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Chi Soo Kim on 1/24/2025 DENYING plaintiff's 91 motion for the appointment of counsel without prejudice and GRANTING plaintiff 30 days to file objections to the 90 findings and recommendations. (Deputy Clerk KLY)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTOINE L. ARDDS, 12 No. 2:20-cv-0133 TLN CSK P Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 V. KIEU, et al., 15 ORDER Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 18 Plaintiff renews his motion for appointment of counsel. As discussed below, plaintiff’s motion is 19 denied, but plaintiff is granted an extension of time to file objections to the pending findings and 20 recommendations. 21 Background On January 16, 2025, the Court recommended that defendants’ motion for summary 22 23 judgment be granted, and denied plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 90.) 24 The parties were granted fourteen days to file objections to the findings and recommendations. 25 (Id.) 26 Discussion 27 28 District courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional 1 1 circumstances, the court may request an attorney to voluntarily represent such a plaintiff. See 28 2 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. 3 Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). When determining whether “exceptional 4 circumstances” exist, the court must consider plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits as 5 well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the 6 legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (district court did not 7 abuse discretion in declining to appoint counsel). The burden of demonstrating exceptional 8 circumstances is on the plaintiff. Id. Circumstances common to most prisoners, such as lack of 9 legal education and limited law library access, do not establish exceptional circumstances that 10 warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. 11 Plaintiff has progressive kidney failure and has been in and out of the hospital. (ECF No. 12 91 at 1.) He renews his motion for appointment of counsel based on the recent placement of an 13 AV fistula in his dominant arm which limits the amount of time he can write. (Id. at 2.) 14 As noted above, the Court recently recommended that defendants’ motion for summary 15 judgment be granted, and denied plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel. While the Court 16 is sympathetic to plaintiff’s medical issues, the Court has considered the factors under Palmer, 17 and does not find that exceptional circumstances warrant the appointment of counsel. Instead, the 18 Court grants plaintiff an extension of time to file objections. 19 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 20 1. 21 22 23 Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 91) is denied without prejudice. 2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to file objections to the pending findings and recommendations (ECF No. 90). 24 25 Dated: January 24, 2025 26 27 /1/ardd0133.31.new 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?