(PC) Flowers v. County of Fresno

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: September 17, 2020
• Docket: 1:19-cv-01027
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL DE’ANDRAE FLOWERS, 1:19-cv-01027-JLT (PC)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 14 COUNTY OF FLOWERS, et al., (Doc. 9) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action, has requested 18 appointment of counsel. 19 The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require 20 counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 21 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the district court may request the 22 voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 23 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). 24 The test for exceptional circumstances requires the court to evaluate the plaintiff’s 25 likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in 26 light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 27 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Circumstances 28 common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not 1 establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of 2 counsel. In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. 3 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5

6 Dated: September 17, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28