(PC) Bouie v. Willox ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 DIRK JA’ONG BOUIE, JR., No. 2:16-cv-0624 JAM AC P 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER 13 R. WILLOX, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff has requested the appointment of counsel. The United States Supreme Court has 17 ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 18 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional 19 circumstances, the district court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 20 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. 21 Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). 22 “When determining whether ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist, a court must consider ‘the 23 likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims 24 pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 25 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). The burden 26 of demonstrating exceptional circumstances is on the plaintiff. Id. Circumstances common to 27 most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not establish 28 exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. 1 Because this case has been dismissed, plaintiff is unable to demonstrate a likelihood of 2 || success on the merits.' The motion for counsel will therefore be denied. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs request for the appointment of 4 || counsel, ECF No. 72, is DENIED. 5 | DATED: December 14, 2020 ~ 6 Httven— Lhar—e_ ALLISON CLAIRE 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 76 | Plaintiffs motion is captioned for and appears to have originally been filed in the Ninth Circuit. 27 || It appears that the Ninth Circuit may have directed the motion to this court because plaintiff had not yet filed a notice of appeal at the time the motion was filed. A review of the docket in 28 | plaintiff’s appeal shows that he re-filed his motion for counsel after initiating his appeal.