(PC) Foust v. Allen

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CARL FOUST, No. 2:23-CV-0179-DAD-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 PEREZ, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action. Pending 18 before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel, ECF No. 13. 19 The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to 20 require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. See Mallard v. United States Dist. 21 Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the district court may 22 request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See Terrell v. 23 Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 24 (9th Cir. 1990). The test for “exceptional circumstances” requires the Court to evaluate the 25 plaintiff’s likelihood success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims 26 on his own in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 27 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). 28 Circumstances common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library 1 | access, do not establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary 2 || assistance of counsel. 3 In the present case, the Court does not at this time find the required exceptional 4 || circumstances. Plaintiff argues that appointment of counsel is warranted because (1) Plaintiff's 5 || physical impairments such as blindness in one eye and head trauma; (2) diagnosed dyslexia; (3) 6 || limited access to the law library; (4) low cognitive functioning; and (5) Plaintiffs limited 7 || knowledge of the law. Plaintiff's motion fails to establish that his impairments constitute an 8 | exceptional circumstance preventing him from prosecuting this action pro se. As to Plaintiff's 9 || blindness, the documentation does not establish any limitation associated with this disability. 10 || None of the documentation attached to Plaintiff's motion indicates that Plaintiff has a learning 11 | disability. Further, a review of Plaintiff's filings to date reflects that Plaintiff has been able to 12 | sufficiently articulate his claims on his own or with assistance provided by the prison law library 13 | or other inmates. 14 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion for the 15 || appointment of counsel, ECF No. 13, is denied. 16 17 || Dated: December 4, 2024 = IS Co 18 DENNIS M. COTA 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28