(PC) Cook v. West

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WILLIAM JEROME MARQUISE COOK, No. 2:20-cv-0588 AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER WEST, 15 Defendant.

17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action, has requested appointment of counsel. ECF No. 3. In support of the motion, plaintiff states in part that he does not know the law, that he has a high school education, and that it is difficult for him to understand written documents. See id. Plaintiff also asserts that he does not have full access to the law library. See id. 22 The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 24 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the district court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 26 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990).

27 The test for exceptional circumstances requires the court to evaluate the plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in | light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Circumstances || common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not | establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of || counsel. In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances.

6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for the appointment of || counsel (ECF No. 3) is DENIED.

8 || DATED: March 23, 2020 ~ 9 Hthren— Llane ALLISON CLAIRE 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE