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

(PC) Ruiz v. Hubbard

(PC) Ruiz v. Hubbard
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · Decided March 22, 2021
(PC) Ruiz v. Hubbard

Trial Court Opinion

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ROGELIO MAY RUIZ, No. 2:19-cv-2350 JAM AC P 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER A. HUBBARD, 14 Defendant.

16 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action, has filed a fourth request for appointment of counsel. ECF No. 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 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the district court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 21 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990).

23 “When determining whether ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist, a court must consider ‘the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). The burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances is on the plaintiff. Id. 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.

2 As the court noted in denying the last request, plaintiff has been denied leave to proceed in || forma pauperis and has yet to pay the filing fee. ECF No. 17. Since this case will not proceed | until plaintiff has paid the filing fee, and a recommendation that this action be dismissed for his || failure to do so is currently pending, appointment of counsel is not warranted.

6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for the appointment of || counsel, ECF No. 18, is denied.

8 | DATED: March 19, 2021 ~ 9 Htttenr— Lhor—e_ ALLISON CLAIRE 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1]

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.