(PC) Perryman v. Lynch ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID PERRYMAN, No. 2:21-cv-2054 AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 JEFF LYNCH, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action, has filed a second 18 motion for the appointment of counsel. ECF No. 10. Specifically, the motion requests that 19 plaintiff be permitted to participate in the court’s Alternative Dispute Resolution Program, and 20 that if he is allowed to do so, that counsel be provided to him. Id. at 2-4. In support of the 21 motion, plaintiff states that his case is complex and that he has video evidence. Id. at 4. 22 The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require 23 counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 24 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the district court may request the 25 voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 26 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). 27 The test for exceptional circumstances requires the court to evaluate the plaintiff’s 28 likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in 1 || light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 2 | 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Circumstances 3 || common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not 4 || establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of 5 || counsel. 6 Because the complaint has not been screened, it has yet to be determined that the 7 || complaint is suitable for service and for the ADR Program. Therefore, the motion is premature. 8 | In any event, any alleged complexity of this case is not sufficient grounds to warrant the 9 || appointment of counsel. For these reasons, the court does not find the required exceptional 10 || circumstances. 11 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of 12 || counsel (ECF No. 10) is DENIED. 13 || DATED: May 20, 2022 ~ 14 Chttien— Clare ALLISON CLAIRE Id UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28