- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RANDALL DUNHAM, No. 2:23-CV-2757-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 ALIASGHAR MOHYUDDIN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel, 19 ECF No. 3. 20 The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to 21 require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. See Mallard v. United States Dist. 22 Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the Court may request the 23 voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 24 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). 25 A finding of “exceptional circumstances” requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success 26 on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims on his own in light of the 27 complexity of the legal issues involved. See Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017. Neither factor is 28 dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision. See id. In Terrell, the 1 | Ninth Circuit concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion with respect to appointment 2 | of counsel because: 3 ... Terrell demonstrated sufficient writing ability and legal knowledge to articulate his claim. The facts he alleged and the issues he raised were not 4 of substantial complexity. The compelling evidence against Terrell made it 5 extremely unlikely that he would succeed on the merits. ‘ Id. at 1017. 7 In the present case, the Court does not at this time find the required exceptional 8 | circumstances to request counsel. Plaintiff's motion requests an attorney because he is legally 9 || blind and a vision-impaired inmate. ECF No. 3 at 1. Simply being vision-impaired does not 10 || demonstrate an inability to articulate one’s claims. Plaintiff, using accommodations, was able to 11 | file a coherent complaint. See ECF No. 1. Should Plaintiff be denied accommodations, he may 12 || re-file his request. Further, Plaintiff did not even attempt to demonstrate a likelihood of success 13 || onthe merits. At this early stage of litigation before discovery and dispositive motions, the 14 | Plaintiff has not met his burden of showing he will likely succeed on the merits of his case. 15 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for the 16 || appointment of counsel, ECF No. 3, is DENIED. 17 18 | Dated: December 13, 2023 Co 19 DENNIS M. COTA 20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Document Info
Docket Number: 2:23-cv-02757
Filed Date: 12/13/2023
Precedential Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 6/20/2024