United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, 2021

(PC) Shaw v. Woods

(PC) Shaw v. Woods
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · Decided January 8, 2021
(PC) Shaw v. Woods

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM SHAW, No. 2:20-cv-1980 DB P

Plaintiff, v. ORDER

WOODS, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action, has requested appointment of counsel. Plaintiff argues that he cannot afford counsel, he is unschooled in the law, restrictions on law library use due to the COVID-19 pandemic make conducting legal research difficult, and his case is complex.

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 22 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 24 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). 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. While the court recognizes the difficulties inmates face conducting research during the COVID-19 pandemic, those difficulties are not unusual — they are faced by inmates in all California prisons. In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 26) is denied.

Dated: January 7, 2021

D ORAH BARNES

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE pLB:9

DB/prisoner-civil rights/shaw1980.31

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.