(PC) Bailey v. Clason et al
Filing
39
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 06/05/2024 DENYING 37 Motion to Appoint Counsel without prejudice. (Nair, C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
ANTOINE LAMAR BAILEY,
11
12
13
14
No. 2:22-cv-1670 WBS DB P
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
J. CLASON, et al.,
Defendants.
15
16
17
18
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
19
counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490
20
U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the district court may request the
21
voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d
22
1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990).
23
The test for exceptional circumstances requires the court to evaluate the plaintiff’s
24
likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in
25
light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328,
26
1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Circumstances
27
common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not
28
establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of
1
1
counsel. In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of
2
3
counsel (ECF No. 37) is denied without prejudice.
4
Dated: June 5, 2024
5
6
7
8
9
10
DB16/hh
11
DB/Prisoner/Civil/R/bail1670.31
12
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?