(PC) Brooks v. Smith ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIE LEE BROOKS, II, No. 2:22-CV-0062-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 RAINELLE SMITH, 15 Defendant. 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 are Plaintiff’s renewed motions for the appointment 19 of counsel. See ECF Nos. 85 and 86. 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. Plaintiff contends that appointment of counsel is warranted because he 1s 9 || untrained in the law, because is experiencing difficulty obtaining discovery from Defendant, and 10 || because the issues involved in this case are complex. The Court does not agree. First, a review 11 || of the docket and various motions filed by Plaintiff indicates that he is capable of articulating 12 | himself on his own. Second, contrary to Plaintiff's assertion, the Court does not find the issues in 13 || this case, which involves a claim of deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs suicidal ideation, are not 14 | complex factually or legally. Finally, Plaintiff's lack of legal training is not unique and does not 15 || constitute an exceptional circumstance. 16 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's renewed requests for the 17 || appointment of counsel, ECF Nos. 85 and 86, are DENIED. 18 19 | Dated: January 23, 2024 Co 20 DENNIS M. COTA 7] UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28