(PC) Quang v. Alamosa ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THANH QUANG, No. 2:22-CV-01704-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 S. ALAMOSA, 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. 5. 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. Plaintiff states that he is not fluent in English and needs assistance from other 9 || inmates/staff to read and write, he has a learning disability, the staff at the facility where he is 10 | housed have a “conflict of interest in assisting” Plaintiff, and he wants to ensure confidentiality. 11 | ECF No. 5, pg. 1. Plaintiff, however, has not provided any factual support regarding 12 || extraordinary need. Id. Thus, Plaintiff has failed to satisfy the standard set forth in Terrell. 13 Plaintiff's stated circumstances such as learning difficulties, need for assistance 14 | from other inmates and/or staff to complete filings, or purported conflicts of interest with the 15 || facility in which Plaintiff is housed are common to many prisoners and, as such, not 16 || extraordinary. A review of the filings to date indicates Plaintiff can articulate his claims on his 17 || own, which are neither factually nor legally complex, inasmuch as he independently prepared and 18 | filed a civil rights complaint. Further, at this stage of the proceedings, it cannot be said that 19 | Plaintiff has established a particular likelihood of success on the merits, as Plaintiff's complaint 20 | has not yet been screened, as required under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). As such, exceptional 21 || circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel do not currently exist. 22 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs request for the 23 || appointment of counsel, ECF No. 5, is denied. 24 25 || Dated: December 9, 2022 = IS Co 26 DENNIS M. COTA 07 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28