(PC) Coleman v. Spearman

Opinion

RODNEY V. COLEMAN, No. 2:19-cv-0369 AC P Plaintiff, v. ORDER M.E. SPEARMAN, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action, asks the court to reconsider its denial of his motion to appoint counsel filed March 2022. See ECF Nos. 30, 33, 35. The court construes the filing as a second motion for the appointment of counsel. In support of the motion, plaintiff states that the appointment of counsel is warranted because prison officials have not allowed him to receive a special typewriter that better assists him with his ADA needs, in violation of their own rules and regulations. In addition, plaintiff anticipates that extensive daily programming at the prison will limit his ability to respond to court-ordered deadlines in a timely manner. ECF No. 35. 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 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). To date, plaintiff has filed documents and responded to court orders in a largely timely and satisfactory manner. Moreover, the fact that prison officials are not following their own rules and regulations does not provide a basis for relief. The challenges that plaintiff faces do not constitute extraordinary circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 35) is DENIED. DATED: May 19, 2022 ~ Lhar—e_ ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1]