(PC) Singh v. CDCR

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RAGHVENDRA SINGH, No. 2:24-cv-3294 SCR P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER CDCR, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff requests that the court appoint counsel.

19 District courts lack authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 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 that an attorney voluntarily represent such a plaintiff. See 28 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). 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. Wood, 900 F.2d at 1335; Riley v. | Franke, 340 F. Supp. 3d 783, 787 (E.D. Wis. 2018).

3 Having considered the relevant factors, the court finds that plaintiff has failed to meet his || burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel at this || time.

6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for the appointment of || counsel (ECF No. 5) is denied without prejudice.

8 | DATED: May 14, 2025 po ll SEAN C. RIORDAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE