(PC) Perryman v. California Superior Court, County of Sacramento ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID PERRYMAN, No. 2:20-cv-1506 TLN AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action, has requested 19 appointment of counsel. ECF No. 12. 20 The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require 21 counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 22 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the district court may request the 23 voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 24 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). 25 The test for exceptional circumstances requires the court to evaluate the plaintiff’s 26 likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in 27 light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 28 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Circumstances 1 || common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not 2 || establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of 3 || counsel. In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances at this 4 | time. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for the appointment of 6 || counsel (ECF No. 12) is denied. 7 || DATED: October 28, 2020 ~ 8 Hthren— Llane ALLISON CLAIRE 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28