(PC) Uhuru v. Rao ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 KOHEN DIALLO UHURU, No. 2:20-cv-1613 WBS DB P 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER 13 DR. YASHODARA RAO, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action, has requested 17 appointment of counsel. 18 The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require 19 counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 20 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the district court may request the 21 voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 22 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). 23 The test for exceptional circumstances requires the court to evaluate the plaintiff’s 24 likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in 25 light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 26 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Circumstances 27 common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not 28 ///// 1 | establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of 2 | counsel. In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for the appointment of 4 | counsel (ECF No. 19) is denied. 5 | Dated: July 21, 2021 6 7 8 vianl613310) OBOE BAENES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28