(PC) Merino v. Gomez ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FRANCISCO MERINO, No. 2:21-cv-0572 TLN KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 GOMEZ, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se, in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. 18 § 1983. Pending before the court are four requests for appointment of counsel filed by plaintiff. 19 Also pending is plaintiff’s request for an investigation into plaintiff’s claims against defendant 20 Navarro. 21 Requests for Appointment of Counsel 22 District courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 23 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional 24 circumstances, the court may request an attorney to voluntarily represent such a plaintiff. See 28 25 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. 26 Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). When determining whether “exceptional 27 circumstances” exist, the court must consider plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits as 28 well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the 1 || legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (district court did not 2 || abuse discretion in declining to appoint counsel). The burden of demonstrating exceptional 3 || circumstances is on the plaintiff. Id. Circumstances common to most prisoners, such as lack of 4 || legal education and limited law library access, do not establish exceptional circumstances that 5 || warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. 6 Having considered the factors under Palmer, the court finds that plaintiff failed to meet his 7 || burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel at this 8 | time. 9 || Request for Investigation 10 Plaintiff requests that the court investigate his claims against defendant Navarro. The 11 || court is not authorized to conduct an investigation on plaintiff's behalf. The court is also not 12 || authorized to conduct discovery on plaintiffs behalf. For these reasons, plaintiff's request for an 13 || investigation is denied. 14 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 15 1. Plaintiff's motions for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 115, 116, 117 and 118) 16 are denied without prejudice; 17 2. Plaintiffs request for an investigation (ECF No. 119) is denied. 18 | Dated: November 1, 2022 " Aectl Aharon 20 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 meri0572.31(7) 22 23 24 25 26 27 28