1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ROBERT L. DOSS, No. 2:24-cv-1092 TLN CSK P 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER 13 MULE CREEK STATE PRISON, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in an action brought under

. 17 Plaintiff requests that the court appoint counsel. District courts lack authority to require counsel 18 to represent indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490

, 298 (1989). In exceptional circumstances, the court may request an attorney to 20 voluntarily represent such a plaintiff. See

(e)(1); Terrell v. Brewer,

1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright,

(9th Cir. 1990). 22 When determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court must consider plaintiff’s 23 likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro 24 se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez,

, 970 25 (9th Cir. 2009) (district court did not abuse discretion in declining to appoint counsel). The 26 burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances is on the plaintiff.

Circumstances 27 common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not 28 establish exceptional circumstances that warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. 1 Having considered the factors under Palmer, the Court finds that plaintiff has failed to 2 || meet his burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of 3 || counsel at this time. Thus, plaintiff's motion is denied without prejudice. 4 In his motion, plaintiff again expresses confusion as to why the Court does not have his 5 | paperwork.! (ECF No. 19.) However, the Court dismissed plaintiff's first amended complaint on 6 || March 14, 2025, and granted him leave to file a second amended complaint within thirty days. 7 || CECF No. 14.) Since that time, plaintiff has only filed a one-page notice of amendment form; no 8 || second amended complaint was included. (ECF No. 15.) On April 9, 2025, the Court explained 9 || to plaintiff that no second amended complaint was received and granted him an additional 10 || fourteen days in which to file the second amended complaint. (ECF No. 16.) On May 2, 2025, 11 || the Court recommended that this action be dismissed because plaintiff has not filed a second 12 || amended complaint. (ECF No. 18.) If plaintiff has an original or a copy of his second amended 13 || complaint (not the notice of amendment form), he should file it along with objections to the 14 | findings and recommendations. 15 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for the appointment of 16 || counsel (ECF No. 19) is denied without prejudice. 17 18 || Dated: May12, 2025 A aA 19 Aan Spe | CHI SOO KIM 20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 | Ardoss1092.31 22 23 24 25 26 27 || | Plaintiff also comments that he does not have another $350.00 in his inmate trust account. However, the Court is not requiring plaintiff to pay an additional $350.00 in connection with this 28 | case.