(PC) Scott v. California Health Care Facility ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 HOWARD SCOTT, No. 2:18-cv-0635 TLN CKD P 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER 13 CALIFORNIA HEALTH CARE FACILITY, 14 Defendant. 15 16 Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se. On August 29, 2018, this action was 17 stayed so that plaintiff could locate certain documents and retain counsel. Plaintiff now asks that 18 the court appoint counsel. District courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent 19 prisoners in section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). 20 In exceptional circumstances, the court may request an attorney to voluntarily represent such a 21 plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); 22 Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). When determining whether 23 “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court must consider plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the 24 merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity 25 of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (district court 26 did not abuse discretion in declining to appoint counsel). The burden of demonstrating 27 exceptional circumstances is on the plaintiff. Id. Circumstances common to most prisoners, such 28 as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not establish exceptional 1 | circumstances that warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. 2 Having considered the factors under Palmer, the court finds that plaintiff has failed to 3 | meet his burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of 4 | counsel at this time. 5 Alternatively, plaintiff asks that the stay imposed in this action remain in place another 6 | 180 days while plaintiff attempts to draft an amended complaint. Good cause appearing, that 7 | request will be granted. 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 9 1. Plaintiff's request for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 22 & 23) is denied. 10 2. Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 22 & 23) is granted. 11 3. The stay imposed in this action remains in place. 12 4. If plaintiff is not ready to submit an amended complaint by March 1, 2020, plaintiff 13 | shall file a status report. 14 | Dated: September 4, 2019 CA rd ht / (g—, Is CAROLYN K DELANEY 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 | 1h scot0635.31+36 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28