1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHAUNCEY T. LEWIS, No. 2:24-CV-0233-DC-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 FARHAT, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 18

. Pending before the Court are Plaintiff's motions for the appointment of 19 counsel, ECF Nos. 28 and 31. 20 The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to 21 require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. See Mallard v. United States Dist. 22 Court,

(1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the district court may 23 request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to

(e)(1). See Terrell v. 24 Brewer,

(9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright,

, 1335-36 25 (9th Cir. 1990). The test for “exceptional circumstances” requires the Court to evaluate the 26 plaintiff’s likelihood success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims 27 on his own in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 28

(9th Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. Look,

(9th Cir. 1983). 1 || Circumstances common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library 2 || access, do not establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary 3 || assistance of counsel. 4 In the present case, the Court does not at this time find the required exceptional 5 || circumstances. Plaintiff argues that appointment of counsel is warranted because it is indigent, he 6 || is incarcerated, he has limited access to the prison law library, he is untrained in the law, and trial 7 || will likely involve conflicting testimony. The Court finds that these are the typical circumstances 8 | of prisoners litigating in federal court and are not the exceptional circumstances justifying 9 || appointment of volunteer counsel. Further, at this stage of the proceedings before any discovery 10 || has been conducted, the Court cannot say that Plaintiff has established any particular likelihood of 11 || success on the merits. Finally, a review of the docket reflects that Plaintiff has been able to 12 || articulate cognizable claims on his own. 13 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs motions for the 14 | appointment of counsel, ECF Nos. 28 and 31, are denied. 15 16 | Dated: November 15, 2024 SS GC M7 DENNIS M. COTA 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28