(PC) Newson v. Shaw ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAYMOND NEWSON, No. 2:18-cv-2010 CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 STEPHEN SHAW, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff has requested the appointment of counsel. The United States Supreme Court has 18 ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 19 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional 20 circumstances, the district court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 21 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. 22 Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). 23 “When determining whether ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist, a court must consider ‘the 24 likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims 25 pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 26 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). The burden 27 of demonstrating exceptional circumstances is on the plaintiff. Id. Circumstances common to 28 most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not establish 1 | exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. 2 Plaintiff moves for appointment of counsel on the grounds that he is indigent and requires 3 | the assistance of counsel in conducting discovery given the complexity of the issues. (ECF No. 4 || 28.) At this stage, the issues in the case do not appear complex.! Furthermore, plaintiff has so far 5 | shown himself capable of articulating his claims without assistance and the court is unable to 6 | assess his likelihood of success at this time. 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs request for the appointment of 8 || counsel (ECF No. 28) is denied. 9 | Dated: August 22, 2019 dp. 7 fh | fe 10 CAROLYN K DELANEY 11 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 B 13:news2010.31.2d 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 | | The complaint is based upon plaintiff’s claims that defendants failed to treat his severe elbow pain for approximately a year, at which point an x-ray was finally ordered and it was discovered 28 | that his elbow was fractured. (ECF No. 1.)