(PC) Jones v. Hernandez ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DRAKE JONES, No. 2:21-CV-0886-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 HERNANDEZ, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 19 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel, 20 ECF No. 21. 21 The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to 22 require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. See Mallard v. United States Dist. 23 Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the 24 voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 25 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). 26 A finding of “exceptional circumstances” requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success 27 on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims on his own in light of the 28 complexity of the legal issues involved. See Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017. Neither factor is ! dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision. See id. In Terrell, the Ninth Circuit concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion with respect to appointment ° of counsel because: ... Terrell demonstrated sufficient writing ability and legal knowledge to 5 articulate his claim. The facts he alleged and the issues he raised were not of substantial complexity. The compelling evidence against Terrell made it 6 extremely unlikely that he would succeed on the merits. 7 Id. at 1017. 8 In the present case, the Court does not at this time find the required exceptional 9g | circumstances. Plaintiff clearly communicated his complaint and motion in a timely manner 10 | without the aid of counsel or any errors requiring a complaint amendment. The limited access to 11 | legal information described in the motion is also typical in the prison setting, thus not an 12 || exceptional circumstance. Furthermore, at this stage of the case, the Court cannot say that 13 | Plaintiff has established a particular likelihood of success on the merits. Finally, Plaintiff alleges 14 | areasonably straightforward Eighth Amendment excessive force constitutional violation claim. 15 | The factual and legal issues involved in this case are thus not unusually complex. 16 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs request for the 17 | appointment of counsel, ECF No. 21, is denied. 18 19 | Dated: June 2, 2022 20 DENNIS M. COTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28