(PC) Steward v. Mohmond ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DONNY STEWARD, No. 2:20-cv-1892 AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 ASIEL MOHMOND, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action, has requested 18 appointment of counsel. ECF No. 8. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 In support of the motion for the appointment of counsel, plaintiff asserts that the 21 complexity of the instant action as well as the complexity of a related, albeit earlier-adjudicated 22 matter, warrant a grant of the motion. ECF No. 8 at 6. Plaintiff also argues that both state and 23 federal law warrant counsel appointment. See id. at 1. 24 The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require 25 counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 26 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the district court may request the 27 voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 28 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). 1 The test for exceptional circumstances requires the court to evaluate the plaintiff’ s 2 | likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in 3 || light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 4 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Circumstances 5 || common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not 6 || establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of 7 | counsel. Furthermore, generally, a litigant has no right to counsel in a civil matter. See United 8 || States v. 30.64 Acres of Land, 795 F.2d 796, 801 (9th Cir. 1986). For these reasons, the court 9 | does not find the required exceptional circumstances. 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for the appointment of 11 | counsel (ECF No. 8) is DENIED. 12 | DATED: December 3, 2020 ~ 13 ththien— Chane ALLISON CLAIRE 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28