(PC) Ricalls v. Smith ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMES LEAONARD RICALLS, No. 2:22-cv-2322 CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 R. SMITH, 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff has requested the appointment of counsel. District courts lack authority to 18 require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States 19 Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional circumstances, the court may request an 20 attorney to voluntarily represent such a plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 21 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 22 1990). When determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court must consider 23 plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his 24 claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 25 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (district court did not abuse discretion in declining to appoint counsel). 26 The burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances is on the plaintiff. Id. Circumstances 27 common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not 28 establish exceptional circumstances that warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. 1 Having considered the factors under Palmer, the court finds that plaintiff has failed to 2 || meet his burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of 3 || counsel at this time. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs request for the appointment of 5 || counsel (ECF No. 7) is denied. 6 || Dated: February 22, 2023 Card Kt | / py la 4 CAROLYNK. DELANEY SOS 8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 1 ingy rica2322.31(2) 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28