(PC) Singh v. Sacramento County ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAGHVENDRA SINGH, No. 2:23-CV-0055-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SACRAMENTO COUNTY, et al., 15 Defendants. 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. 8. Plaintiff also requests a stay due to recent incarceration. Id. 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 to request counsel. Plaintiff's motion merely cites case law — it offers no insight 9 || into how he might have exceptional circumstances. 10 Plaintiff demonstrated sufficient ability to articulate claims through writing a 11 || coherent complaint. See ECF No. 9. At the current stage of the proceedings before any 12 || discovery or dispositive motions, Plaintiff has not shown any particular likelihood of success on 13 || the merits. Consequently, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the existence of exceptional 14 || circumstances. 15 As to Plaintiff's request for a stay, the Court concludes that incarceration 1s not a 16 || valid basis to stay proceedings for an indefinite period of time pending Plaintiffs release. To the 17 || extent Plaintiffs will need additional time to comply with various deadlines in this case, the 18 || Court will entertain requests for extensions of time and will grant such requests upon a showing 19 | of good cause demonstrating the need for additional time. 20 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for the 21 || appointment of counsel and stay of proceedings, ECF No. 8, is DENIED. 22 23 | Dated: December 13, 2023 Co 24 DENNIS M. COTA 25 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28