(PC) Bishop v. Dodson ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TOR AHMADD BISHOP, No. 2:21-CV-0574-KJM-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 G. DODSON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action. Pending 18 before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion, ECF No. 20, for the appointment of counsel. 19 The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to 20 require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in civil rights cases. See Mallard v. United States 21 Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the court may 22 request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See Terrell v. 23 Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 24 (9th Cir. 1990). A finding of “exceptional circumstances” requires an evaluation of both the 25 likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims on his 26 own in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017. 27 Neither factor is dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision. See id. 28 In Terrell, the Ninth Circuit concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion with respect 1 | to appointment of counsel because: 2 ... Terrell demonstrated sufficient writing ability and legal knowledge to articulate his claim. The facts he alleged and the issues he raised were not 3 of substantial complexity. The compelling evidence against Terrell made it 4 extremely unlikely that he would succeed on the merits. 5 Id. at 1017. 6 In the present case, the Court does not at this time find the required exceptional 7 | circumstances. According to Plaintiff, appointment of counsel is warranted because Plaintiff is 8 | being denied access to the courts. See ECF No. 20, pg. 1-4. These circumstances are not the type 9 | of exceptional circumstances necessary for the appointment of counsel. Nor is a motion to 10 | appoint counsel the correct vehicle to remedy the denial of access to the courts. Further, there is 11 | not enough before the Court for a determination of the likelihood of success at this early stage in 12 | the proceedings. Plaintiff has also not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits in his 13 | motion. Finally, a review of the record demonstrates Plaintiff has been able to articulate his 14 | claims on his own. 15 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs request for the 16 | appointment of counsel, ECF No. 20, is denied. 17 18 | Dated: November 5, 2021 19 DENNIS M. COTA 20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28