(PC)Watkins v. Klein ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 MAURICE WATKINS, No. 2:20-cv-1360 DB P 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER 13 JEFF LYNCH, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action 42 U.S.C. §1983. 17 Plaintiff claims officers failed to protect him in violation of his Eighth Amendment. Presently 18 before the court is plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 7.) 19 In support of his motion plaintiff argues counsel should be appointed because he cannot 20 afford counsel, his imprisonment will interfere with his ability to litigate this case, and he has 21 attempted to obtain counsel on his own. 22 The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require 23 counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 24 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the district court may request the 25 voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 26 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). 27 The test for exceptional circumstances requires the court to evaluate the plaintiff’s 28 likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in 1 | light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 2 | 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Circumstances 3 || common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not 4 | establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of 5 | counsel. 6 In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. 7 | Plaintiff’s arguments amount to nothing more than circumstances common to most prisoners. 8 | Therefore, the court will deny the motion without prejudice. 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for the appointment of 10 | counsel (ECF No. 7) is denied. 11 | Dated: November 18, 2020 12 13 14 ORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 DB:12 19 || DB:1/Orders/Prisoner Civil Rights/watk1360.31 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28