(PC) Dunham v. Mohyuddin

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RANDALL DUNHAM, No. 2:23-CV-2757-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 ALIASGHAR MOHYUDDIN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s renewed motion for the appointment of 19 counsel, ECF No. 13. Plaintiff’s prior motion was denied on December 13, 2023, ECF No. 9. 20 The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to 21 require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. See Mallard v. United States Dist. 22 Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the Court may request the 23 voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 24 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). 25 A finding of “exceptional circumstances” requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success 26 on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims on his own in light of the 27 complexity of the legal issues involved. See Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017. Neither factor is 28 dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision. See id. In Terrell, the 1 | Ninth Circuit concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion with respect to appointment 2 | of counsel because: 3 ... Terrell demonstrated sufficient writing ability and legal knowledge to articulate his claim. The facts he alleged and the issues he raised were not 4 of substantial complexity. The compelling evidence against Terrell made it 5 extremely unlikely that he would succeed on the merits.

‘ Id. at 1017.

7 In the present case, the Court does not at this time find the required exceptional 8 || circumstances. As with his prior motion, Plaintiff states that he requires the assistance of counsel 9 || because he is indigent, incarcerated, and is vision impaired. Plaintiff states that he has requested 10 || prison accommodation to use a headband magnifier. A review of the docket reflects that, despite 11 | Plaintiffs vision impairment, he has been able to file documents and has presented the Court with 12 || acomplaint stating cognizable claims. Further, as outlined in the Court’s January 16, 2024, order 13 || directing service of the complaint, Plaintiffs claims are neither legally nor factually complex. 14 | Finally, at this early stage of the proceedings before an answer has been filed or any discovery 15 || conducted, the Court cannot say that Plaintiff has demonstrated any particular likelihood of 16 || success on the merits. 17 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's renewed request for the 18 || appointment of counsel, ECF No.13, is denied. 19 20 | Dated: March 11, 2024 Co 21 DENNIS M. COTA 02 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28