United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, 2022

(PC) Driver v. Kern County Superior Court

(PC) Driver v. Kern County Superior Court
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · Decided September 6, 2022
(PC) Driver v. Kern County Superior Court

Trial Court Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BILLY DRIVER, No. 2:20-cv-1665 TLN KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, et al., Defendants.

18 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se, in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff requests the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff identifies five counsel whom he wishes appointed to represent him in this action.

21 District courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional circumstances, the court may request an attorney to voluntarily represent such a plaintiff. See 28 24 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). When determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court must consider plaintiff’s 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) (district court did not | abuse discretion in declining to appoint counsel). 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 || warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel.

5 Having considered the factors under Palmer, the court finds that plaintiff failed to meet his || burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel at this || time. However, if any of the five counsel identified in the pending motion wish to represent | plaintiff in this action, they may contact the court.

9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for the appointment of || counsel (ECF No. 178) is denied without prejudice.

11 || Dated: September 6, 2022 Aectl Aharon 13 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE | drivi665.31(4)

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