(PC) Godoy v. Son ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 KENNETH GODOY, No. 2:20-cv-1938 KJM KJN P 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER 13 SON MONNIVERIN, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se, in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. 17 § 1983. Plaintiff’s motions for appointment of counsel, and for an extension of time to file an 18 amended complaint are before the court. 19 Motion for Counsel 20 Plaintiff seeks the appointment of counsel because he is confined to his cell and unable to 21 attend law library, make photocopies, or research. District courts lack authority to require 22 counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. 23 Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional circumstances, the court may request an attorney 24 to voluntarily represent such a plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 25 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). 26 When determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court must consider plaintiff’s 27 likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro 28 se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 eI OS ESE II IIE NO 1 | (9th Cir. 2009) (district court did not abuse discretion in declining to appoint counsel). The 2 | burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances is on the plaintiff. Id. Circumstances 3 || common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not 4 | establish exceptional circumstances that warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. 5 At this stage of the proceedings, the court is unable to evaluate plaintiff's likelihood of 6 || success on the merits. Plaintiff's complaint was dismissed because his general claims of 7 | allegedly inadequate medical care were too vague and conclusory to demonstrate a constitutional 8 | violation. Having considered the factors under Palmer, the court finds that plaintiff has failed to 9 | meet his burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of 10 || counsel at this time. 11 | Motion for Extension 12 Plaintiff also filed a motion for extension of time to file an amended complaint. Good 13 | cause appearing, the motion is granted. 14 | Orders 15 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 16 1. Plaintiffs motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 14) is denied without 17 | prejudice; 18 2. Plaintiffs motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 15) is granted; and 19 3. Plaintiff is granted sixty days from the date of this order in which to file an amended 20 | complaint. 21 | Dated: January 24, 2021 2 Aectl Aharon 23 KENDALL J. NE /eodo1938.31436 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28