(PC) Solomon v. Sheldon

8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TIMOTHY SOLOMON, No. 2:18-CV-3012-JAM-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER JONATHAN SHELDON, 15 Defendant.

17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 52).

20 The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. See Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the 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 on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims on his own in light of the 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 MASE 2.40 EAINT RAINING UOC OIC Ne OY ev | 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 4 articulate his claim. The facts he alleged and the issues he raised were not of substantial complexity. The compelling evidence against Terrell made 5 it extremely unlikely that he would succeed on the merits.

6 Id. at 1017.

7 In the present case, the Court does not at this time find the required exceptional || circumstances. Plaintiff provides no justifiable reason for the appointment of counsel. His motion | simply states that, “[1]f possible I would really like a[] court appointed attorney to help me | proceed in the correct way and correct timing.” ECF No. 52, pg. 1. Such a statement is | insufficient to show exceptional circumstances.

12 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs request for the || appointment of counsel (ECF No. 52) is denied.

15 | Dated: June 15, 2020 Ssvcqo_ 16 DENNIS M. COTA 17 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE