(PC) Ramirez-Salgado v. Lewis ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE RAMIREZ-SALGADO, No. 2:18-cv-0185 JAM AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 J. LEWIS, 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. 32. In support of the motion, plaintiff 19 states that a fellow inmate who had been assisting him with preparing motions in this matter has 20 left High Desert State Prison. Plaintiff further asserts that he does not have the skill, training or 21 experience to represent himself, and that his physical ailments and below average reading level 22 further impede his ability to represent himself. See id. at 1-3. Plaintiff attaches declarations to 23 support these claims. See ECF No. 32 at 4-8. 24 The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require 25 counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 26 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the district court may request the 27 voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 28 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). wAIe 6 LOU VEY SOU EAINTT ENN RAMU OO OPI ee AY ee 1 The test for exceptional circumstances requires the court to evaluate the plaintiff’ s 2 | likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in 3 | light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 4 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Circumstances 5 || common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not 6 || establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of 7 | counsel. 8 The content of plaintiff’s complaint and subsequent filings demonstrate that plaintiff has 9 | sufficient understanding of these proceedings as well as the ability to move this matter forward. 10 | Moreover, to the extent plaintiff asserts that the loss of inmate legal assistance warrants the 11 || appointment of counsel, the court also notes that the instant request is cogent and includes two 12 || supporting declarations as well as other relevant exhibits. See ECF No. 32 at 4-14. Without 13 || more, the fact that plaintiff was also assisted with filing this request (see ECF No. 32 at 8) does 14 | not demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of counsel. Nothing about 15 || the complexity or potential merit of the case indicates that such circumstances exist at this time. 16 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for the appointment of 17 || counsel (ECF No. 32) is DENIED. 18 | DATED: June 9, 2020 ~ 19 Chtten— Lhane ALLISON CLAIRE 20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28