(PC) Uhuru v. Cueva

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA KOHEN DIALLO E. UHURU, aka No. 2:23-cv-1321 WBS DB P DIALLO EARLY UHURU, Plaintiff, 12 ORDER 13 v. DANIEL E. CUEVA, et al.,, 15 Defendants.

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

20 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).

25 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. In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances.

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

7 | Dated: January 19, 2024 10 ORAH BARNES DLBI UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 uburt321.31