Message
×
loading..

(PC) Baker v. Solorano ( 2023 )


Menu:
  • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MILLARD WAYNE BAKER, Jr., No. 2:22-cv-01096-KJM-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SOLORANO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 18 Plaintiff asks that the court appoint counsel. ECF No. 39. 19 District courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 20 1983 cases. Mallard v. U. S. Dist. Ct., 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional circumstances, 21 the court may request an attorney to voluntarily represent such a plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. 22 § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 23 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). When determining whether “exceptional circumstances” 24 exist, the court must consider plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability 25 of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues 26 involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (district court did not abuse 27 discretion in declining to appoint counsel). The burden of demonstrating exceptional 28 circumstances is on the plaintiff. Id. Circumstances common to most prisoners, such as lack of 1 | legal education and limited law library access, do not establish exceptional circumstances that 2 | warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. 3 Plaintiff requests the appointment of counsel because this matter is complex, he is not a 4 | lawyer and is unable to afford one, and he fears that he will be unable to obtain discovery from 5 | defendants or access legal materials. Should plaintiff face challenges obtaining relevant 6 | discovery from defendants or is completely unable to access legal materials, he may file a motion 7 | seeking the court’s assistance. After considering the factors under Palmer, the court finds that 8 | plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances warranting the 9 | appointment of counsel at this time. 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for the appointment of 11 counsel, ECF No. 39, is denied without prejudice. 12 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 ( ie — Dated: _ May 9, 2023 q-—— 15 JEREMY D. PETERSON 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Document Info

Docket Number: 2:22-cv-01096

Filed Date: 5/10/2023

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 6/20/2024