(PC) Roberts v. California State Prison Sacramento

8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DAVID NATHANIEL ROBERTS, No. 2:20-CV-1068-TLN-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON SACRAMENTO, Defendant.

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. 4).

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).

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 wOASe 2 OU UVM EYYVOU PRINCI OMI LPC Ee OY Ov | dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision. See id. In Terrell, the | 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 5 articulate his claim. The facts he alleged and the issues he raised were not of substantial complexity. The compelling evidence against Terrell made 6 it extremely unlikely that he would succeed on the merits.

7 Id. at 1017.

8 In the present case, the Court does not at this time find the required exceptional | circumstances. Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel is simply a boilerplate power of attorney | form which seeks to appoint the Court as plaintiff's attorney. See ECF No. 4. Plaintiff does not | present facts which articulate “exceptional circumstances” justifying court appointment of || counsel at this time.

13 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs request for the | appointment of counsel (ECF No. 4) is denied.

16 | Dated: June 15, 2020 Ssvcqo_ M DENNIS M. COTA 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE