- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANDRE WELLS, No. 2:20-cv-1557 WBS AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 GAVIN NEWSOM, 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. 37 at 1-2. In addition, plaintiff asks that a number of new 19 defendants be added to his complaint. See id. at 3. For the reasons stated below the requests will 20 be denied. 21 I. MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL 22 In support of the motion to appoint counsel, plaintiff states that he is an EOP mental 23 health patient. He also states that he is a part of the developmental disability program. See ECF 24 No. 37 at 1. 25 The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require 26 counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 27 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the district court may request the 28 voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). 2 The test for exceptional circumstances requires the court to evaluate the plaintiff’s 3 likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in 4 light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 5 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Circumstances 6 common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not 7 establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of 8 counsel. 9 To date, plaintiff has adequately managed his case as a pro se litigant. He has filed a 10 complaint and a first amended complaint on his own, as well as multiple motions for injunctive 11 relief, a motion for the appointment of counsel, and motions for a change of venue. See ECF 12 Nos. 8, 10, 15, 20, 26, 28, 30, 31, 32. For this reason, the court does not find the required 13 exceptional circumstances. 14 II. REQUEST TO ADD DEFENDANTS TO COMPLAINT 15 With respect to plaintiff’s request to add additional defendants to this action, plaintiff 16 simply provides a long list of names of individuals he would like to add. See ECF No. 37 at 3. 17 He makes broad sweeping statements that these defendants are guilty of retaliation, future 18 retaliation, harassment, chilling his right to appeal and the like. See id. at 3. Plaintiff makes no 19 effort to provide specific facts and link them to each of the named individuals. 20 A complaint must set forth specific facts with respect to each defendant’s role in an 21 alleged constitutional deprivation. See generally Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 22 1988). Vague and conclusory allegations concerning the involvement of official personnel in 23 civil rights violations are not sufficient. See Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 24 1982). Furthermore, in order to add additional defendants to this action, plaintiff would need to 25 do so in an amended complaint that is separate from the instant appointment of counsel request. 26 //// 27 ///// 28 //// ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for the appointment of 2 || counsel and to add defendants, ECF No. 37, is DENIED. 3 || DATED: April 6, 2021 ~ 4 ttt0n— ALLISON CLAIRE 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Document Info
Docket Number: 2:20-cv-01557
Filed Date: 4/6/2021
Precedential Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 6/19/2024