(PC) Deegan v. State of California ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SIDNEY ROSS DEEGAN, III, No. 2:19-CV-2310-WBS-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel 19 (ECF No. 9). 20 The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to 21 require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. See Mallard v. United States Dist. 22 Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the 23 voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 24 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). 25 A finding of “exceptional circumstances” requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success 26 on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims on his own in light of the 27 complexity of the legal issues involved. See Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017. Neither factor is 28 dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision. See id. In Terrell, the 1 | Ninth Circuit concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion with respect to appointment 2 | of counsel because: 3 ... Terrell demonstrated sufficient writing ability and legal knowledge to articulate his claim. The facts he alleged and the issues he raised were not 4 of substantial complexity. The compelling evidence against Terrell made it 5 extremely unlikely that he would succeed on the merits. 6 Id. at 1017. In the present case, the court does not at this time find the required exceptional 7 circumstances. Plaintiff states that appointment of counsel is warranted because he is indigent, 8 the issues involved are complex, he has a limited knowledge of the law, and he is an inmate. See 9 ECF No. 9, pgs. 1-2. The court finds that these are not exceptional circumstances. To the 10 contrary, the circumstances outlined by plaintiff are common to most prisoner litigants. Further, 11 at this stage of the proceedings before the court has screened the complaint and before any 12 discovery or substantive motions have been filed, the court cannot say that plaintiff has any 13 likelihood of success on the merits. Additionally, plaintiff has thus far demonstrated an ability to 14 articulate himself on his own. Finally, a cursory review of the complaint reflects that the issues 15 presented — denial of medical treatment, denial of basic necessities, and retaliation — do not 16 appear to be complex. 17 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs request for the 18 appointment of counsel (ECF No. 9) is denied. 19 20 Dated: January 21, 2020 21 DENNIS M. COTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28