(PC) George v. Zuniga ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICHARD EARL GEORGE, No. 2:19-cv-2403 KJM AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 ZUNIGA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action, has requested 18 appointment of counsel. 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 asserts that he requires counsel because his case is complex, he is untrained in the 4 | law, he takes large doses of psychotropic medication for is psychosis, and counsel would be better 5 || able to present his case at trial. ECF No. 14. These reasons fail to demonstrate extraordinary 6 || circumstances exist, and to the extent plaintiff appears to assert he suffers from a mental health 7 || condition that impairs his ability to represent himself, he has not explained how his condition 8 || prevents him proceeding without counsel. Additionally, plaintiffs claim that he requires counsel 9 | at trial is premature, as it has not yet been determined whether this case will proceed to trial. 10 | Finally, the court has yet to screen the complaint, and will not do so until plaintiff’ s fee status has 11 | been resolved, so it is currently unclear whether plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. 12 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for the appointment of 13 || counsel (ECF No. 14) is denied. 14 | DATED: February 13, 2020 ~ 19 Hhthren— Char ALLISON CLAIRE 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28