- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANDRE WELLS, No. 2:17-cv-2709 AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 R. KENDALL, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action, has filed another 18 request for appointment of counsel. ECF No. 69. 19 The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require 20 counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 21 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the district court may request the 22 voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 23 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). 24 “When determining whether ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist, a court must consider ‘the 25 likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims 26 pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 27 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). The burden 28 of demonstrating exceptional circumstances is on the plaintiff. Id. Circumstances common to 1 || most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not establish 2 || exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. 3 Plaintiff has once again requested the appointment of counsel based on the ground that he 4 | is autistic. ECF No. 69. As plaintiff has been advised on numerous occasions, the mere claim 5 || that he has autism is not sufficient to warrant the appointment of counsel. ECF No. 26 at 2; ECF 6 || No. 35 at 2; ECF No. 40 at 2; ECF No. 56 at 3; ECF No. 60 at 2. The court has also previously 7 | noted that plaintiff has been able to adequately present his claims up to this point despite his 8 || limitations. ECF No. 60 at 2. Furthermore, this case is currently scheduled for a settlement 9 | conference on January 8, 2020, and plaintiff’s filings demonstrate that he should be capable of 10 || representing himself at the settlement conference without the assistance of counsel. 11 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for the appointment of 12 || counsel (ECF No. 69) is denied. 13 | DATED: December 11, 2019 ~ 14 Chttien— Clare ALLISON CLAIRE 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Document Info
Docket Number: 2:17-cv-02709
Filed Date: 12/12/2019
Precedential Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 6/19/2024