(PC) Sexton v. Unknown ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BILLY LEE SEXTON, No. 2:22-CV-01642-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 UNKNOWN, 15 Defendant. 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. 10. 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 fails to provide any factual support regarding extraordinary need and 9 || only states that appointment of counsel is warranted because his is disabled, the case is 10 || complicated, and is beyond his mental capacity. See ECF No. 10, pg. 2. Thus, Plaintiff has 11 | failed to satisfy the standard set forth in Terrell. 12 Plaintiff's stated circumstances, however, are not extraordinary. A review of the 13 || filings to date indicates that Plaintiff can articulate his claims on his own, which are neither 14 | factually nor legally complex, inasmuch as he independently prepared and filed a civil rights 15 || complaint, motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and requested the assistance of counsel. Further, 16 || at this stage of the proceedings, it cannot be said that Plaintiff has established a particular 17 || likelihood of success on the merits as Plaintiff has been given an opportunity to amend his civil 18 | rmghts complaint, see ECF No. 8, which has not yet been filed. Therefore, there is no evidence 19 || presently before the Court to allow for an evaluation of the merits or complexity of the matters at 20 || issue. As such, exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel do not currently 21 || exist. 22 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs request for the 23 || appointment of counsel, ECF No. 10, is denied. 24 25 || Dated: December 9, 2022 = IS Co 26 DENNIS M. COTA 07 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28