(PC) Coons v. Leach ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TIMOTHY COONS, No. 2:19-cv-1497-TLN-EFB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 LEACH, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. He has filed a document entitled “Motion: Con[d]uct Discovery.” ECF No. 33. 19 He states he need various forms, camera footage, medical records, and witness information. Id. 20 Plaintiff must, however, serve his interrogatories, requests for admissions, and/or requests for 21 production on defense counsel rather than filing them with the court.1 See E.D. Cal. Local Rules 22 250.2-250.4. If the response provided to plaintiff is insufficient, plaintiff may then file a motion 23 to compel with the court.2 24 Plaintiff also seeks appointment of counsel. ECF No. 32. District courts lack authority to 25 require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States 26 1 Pursuant to the court’s discovery and scheduling order (ECF No. 30), written requests 27 for discovery must be served no later than September 11, 2020. 28 2 Motions to compel must be filed no later than November 13, 2020. ECF No. 30 at 4. 2 fOUV VET EOP RINSE MMIC OOP IA Oe AY ee 1 | Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional circumstances, the court may request an 2 || attorney to voluntarily to represent such a plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. $ 1915(e)(1); Terrell v. 3 | Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th 4 | Cir. 1990). When determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court must 5 || consider the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate 6 | his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 7 | F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). Having considered those factors, the court finds there are no 8 || exceptional circumstances in this case. 9 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that 10 1. Plaintiff's “Motion: Con[d]uct Discovery” (ECF No. 33) is DENIED; and 11 2. Plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 32) is DENIED without 12 prejudice. 13 | DATED: June 18, 2020. gS Vat a Sd Hy AA 14 EDMUND F. BRENNAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28