1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 JOEY CRUZ ALVAREZ, No. 2:25-cv-2191 SCR P 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. ORDER 15 VELASQUEZ, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in an action brought under

. 19 Plaintiff requests that the court appoint counsel. District courts lack statutory authority to require 20 counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. 21 Court,

(1989). In exceptional circumstances, the court may request that an 22 attorney voluntarily represent such a plaintiff. See

(e)(1); Terrell v. Brewer, 935

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

(9th Cir. 1990). 24 When determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court must consider plaintiff’s 25 likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro 26 se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez,

, 970 27 (9th Cir. 2009) (district court did not abuse discretion in declining to appoint counsel). The 28 burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances is on the plaintiff.

Circumstances 1 | common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not 2 || establish exceptional circumstances that warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. 3 Having considered the factors under Palmer, the court does not find exceptional 4 || circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel at this time. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY 5 || ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 6) is denied without 6 || prejudice. 7 || DATED: September 26, 2025

9 SEAN C. RIORDAN 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28