Perdomo v. Plumber

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CARLOS PERDOMO, Case No. 17-06962 BLF (PR) Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING SECOND 12 MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF v. COUNSEL S.V.S.P., et al., Defendants.

15 (Docket No. 38)

17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison officials at the Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”).

19 Plaintiff has filed a second motion and declaration requesting appointment of counsel.

20 (Docket No. 38) Plaintiff declares he lacks income to employ counsel, he has limited access to the law library, and he has no education in the law. (Id.) 22 Plaintiff does not provide the Court with any new information that he did not present in his first motion for appointment of counsel, (Docket No. 24), and his reasons are no different from those posed by other pro se prisoner litigants. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED without prejudice for lack of exceptional circumstances. See Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004); Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (9th Cir. 1997); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wilborn v. 1 This order terminates Docket No. 38.

2 IT ISSO ORDERED.

3 || Dated: _October 10, 2019_ han Phys omer) BETH LABSON FREEMAN 4 United States District Judge

©

Z 18 Order Denying Second Motion for Appointment of Counsel 27 P:\PRO-SE\BLF\CR.17\06962Perdomo_deny.atty2.docx