(PC) Morris v. CSP-Sacramento ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ORVILLE M. MORRIS, No. 2:17-cv-2286 AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 CSP-SACRAMENTO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights 18 action, has requested appointment of counsel. ECF No. 22. In support of this motion, plaintiff 19 states in part that he has “limited access to legal research,” that he is “unlearned in the matters of 20 law,” that his case is complex, and that he has psychological damage that prevents him from 21 moving forward with this case. See id. at 1. 22 The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require 23 counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 24 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the district court may request the 25 voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 26 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). 27 The test for exceptional circumstances requires the court to evaluate the plaintiff’s 28 likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in 1 | light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 2 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Circumstances 3 || common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not 4 | establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of 5 || counsel. Moreover, given that plaintiff filed the complaint himself and that this is his second 6 || request for appointment of counsel to date (see ECF Nos. 1, 13), plaintiff has demonstrated a 7 || sufficient understanding of this matter and of what he needs to do to move these proceedings 8 || forward. See ECF Nos. 1, 13. For these reasons, the court does not find the required exceptional 9 || circumstances. 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for the appointment of 11 | counsel, filed August 29, 2019 (ECF No. 22), is DENIED. 12 | DATED: September 5, 2019 ~ 13 Chthien—Chare ALLISON CLAIRE 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28