Williams v. Ortega et al

Filing 122

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 120 ). Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 1/21/2021. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (jdt)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

LANCE WILLIAMS,

Case No.: 18cv547-LAB-MDD
Plaintiff,

11
12

v.

13

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL

O. ORTEGA, et al.,
Defendants.

14

[ECF No. 120]

15
16

On January 20, 2021, Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and

17

in forma pauperis, moved the Court to appoint counsel. (ECF No. 120). In

18

support, Plaintiff explains the case is “too complex and difficult to litigate

19

with [his] mental health impairments and [the] coronavirus pandemic.” (Id.

20

at 1). Additionally, Plaintiff lacks a legal education and law library access.

21

(Id. at 1-2).

22

District courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent

23

prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296,

24

298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the district court may

25

request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

26

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

27

Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). The test for exceptional
1
18cv547-LAB-MDD

1

circumstances requires the court to evaluate the plaintiff’s likelihood of

2

success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims

3

pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Wilborn v.

4

Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d

5

952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983).

6

First, circumstances common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal

7

education and limited law library access do not establish exceptional

8

circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of

9

counsel. (ECF No. 24 at 2); see e.g., Wood, 900 F.2d at 1335-36 (affirming

10

denial of appointment of counsel where plaintiff lacked legal education and

11

had limited law library access); Galvan v. Fox, No. 2:15-cv-01798-KJM (DB),

12

2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56280, at *23 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2017). Second, and

13

more importantly, the Court has recommended that Defendants’ motion for

14

summary judgment be granted. (ECF No. 114). Accordingly, Plaintiff has

15

not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits and, therefore, has not

16

demonstrated exceptional circumstances to appoint counsel. See Wilborn,

17

789 F.2d at 1331. Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s

18

motion to appoint counsel.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 21, 2021

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2
18cv547-LAB-MDD