(PC) Price v. White ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SCOTT RICHARD PRICE, No. 2:22-cv-0745 WBS AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 STEVE WHITE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a county prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action, has filed a second 18 request for the appointment of counsel. ECF No. 13. 19 The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require 20 counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 21 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the district court may request the 22 voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 23 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). 24 “When determining whether ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist, a court must consider ‘the 25 likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims 26 pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 27 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). The burden 28 of demonstrating exceptional circumstances is on the plaintiff. Id. Circumstances common to 1 | most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not establish 2 || exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. 3 As in his original request, plaintiff seeks appointment of counsel on the grounds that he is 4 || indigent, his ability to litigate is limited by his incarceration, the issues are complex, he has 5 || limited access to the law library and limited legal knowledge, and counsel would better enable 6 || him to proceed at trial. ECF No. 9. As the court previously advised, these circumstances are 7 || common to most prisoners and do not warrant appointment of counsel. Moreover, plaintiff 8 | cannot establish a likelihood of success on the merits in light of the pending recommendation that 9 || this action be dismissed for failure to state a claim. 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for the appointment of 11 || counsel (ECF No. 13) is DENIED. 12 | DATED: June 2, 2022 ~ Cttt0 Lhar—e_ 13 ALLISONCLAIRE. 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28