(PC) Jones v. Senogor

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MARK A. JONES, No. 2:17-cv-1422 KJM AC P 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER SENOGOR, et al., 14 Defendants.

16 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action, has requested appointment of counsel.

18 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 20 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 22 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990).

23 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 wOAOe Gt UVM LING INIT EN RAMU OO PI ee AY ee | counsel. In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances.

2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for the appointment of || counsel (ECF No. 22) is denied.

4 | DATED: September 24, 2020 ~ 5 Hthren— Llane ALLISON CLAIRE 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE