1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MIGUEL GUILLEN, No. 1:21-cv-01505 GSA (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 13 v. (ECF No. 26) 14 ISMAIL PATEL, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this civil 18 rights action seeking relief under

. The matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 Before this Court is Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel. ECF No. 26. For 21 the reasons stated below, the motion will be denied. 22 I. MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 23 In support of Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel, Plaintiff states that he 24 cannot afford to pay for an attorney. ECF No. 26 at 1. In addition, he states that he has contacted 25 more than three attorneys over the last 30 days to ask them to represent him, but that he has had 26 no success in getting any of them to take his case. See

Finally, Plaintiff states that he has 27 limited knowledge of the law, and that his case involves medical issues that require an 28 examination.

1 2 II. APPLICABLE LAW 3 District courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 4 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court,

(1989). In exceptional 5 circumstances, the court may request an attorney to voluntarily represent such a plaintiff. See 28

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

(9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. 7 Housewright,

(9th Cir. 1990). When determining whether “exceptional 8 circumstances” exist, the court must consider plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits as 9 well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the 10 legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez,

(9th Cir. 2009) (district court did not 11 abuse discretion in declining to appoint counsel). The burden of demonstrating exceptional 12 circumstances is on the plaintiff.

Circumstances common to most prisoners, such as lack of 13 legal education and limited law library access, do not establish exceptional circumstances that 14 warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. 15 III DISCUSSION 16 Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel will be denied. The Court notes that 17 Plaintiff wrote and filed the viable and serviceable complaint, which indicates to the Court that 18 Plaintiff does have the ability to articulate his claims in a sufficient enough manner despite any 19 complexities that may arise in it like medical examinations or more complicated legal questions. 20 For this reason, having considered the factors under Palmer, the Court finds that Plaintiff has 21 failed to meet his burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment 22 of counsel at this time. 23 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of 24 counsel (ECF No. 26) is DENIED without prejudice. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26

27 Dated: September 8, 2025 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28