(PC) Woolery v. Shasta County Jail ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JACOB DAVID WOOLERY, No. 2:21-cv-0270 AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SHASTA COUNTY JAIL, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a county inmate proceeding pro se with a civil rights action, has requested 18 appointment of counsel. ECF No. 5. In support of the motion, plaintiff states in part that he 19 cannot afford counsel, that the issues in his case are complex, that he has limited access to the jail 20 law library, and that he has limited knowledge of the law. See id. 21 The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require 22 counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 23 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the district court may request the 24 voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 25 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). 26 The test for exceptional circumstances requires the court to evaluate the plaintiff’s 27 likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in 28 light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1 | 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Circumstances 2 || common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not 3 || establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of 4 | counsel. 5 A cursory review of plaintiff's complaint and the instant motion indicates that plaintiff is 6 || able to articulate his complaints and concerns in a clear and concise manner and that he 7 || understands the fundamental procedural requirements needed to proceed with this action, e.g., the 8 | need to exhaust all state administrative remedies prior to filing a complaint in federal court. See 9 | generally ECF No. 1 at 2-4; see also ECF No. 5. For these reasons, the court does not find the 10 || required exceptional circumstances. 11 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for the appointment of 12 || counsel (ECF No. 5) is DENIED. 13 || DATED: April 20, 2021 Ctlhter— Lane 14 ALLISON CLAIRE 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28