(PC) Gibson v. Castellanos
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 REGINALD GIBSON, No. 1:21-cv-00794 KES GSA (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 13 v. (ECF No. 66) 14 E. CASTELLANOS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this civil 18 rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 Before this Court is Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel. ECF No. 66. This 21 is Plaintiff’s third request. See ECF Nos. 39, 41. His previous two requests have been denied. 22 See ECF Nos. 40, 44. For the reasons stated below, this motion will be denied as well. 23 I. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 24 In support of Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel, Plaintiff states in part that 25 he is unable to afford counsel and that he is proceeding in forma pauperis. ECF No. 66 at 1. 26 Plaintiff also argues that he is a person with a “mental develop disability” and the issues in this 27 case are complex and will require significant research and investigation . Id. To support his 28 1 claim of developmental disability, Plaintiff provides documentation.1 See ECF No. 66 at 4. He 2 states that he is a participant in the mental health services delivery system and is also assigned to 3 the developmental disability program. Because of his disability problems Plaintiff states he will 4 require third party assistance. 6 District courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 7 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional 8 circumstances, the court may request an attorney to voluntarily represent such a plaintiff. See 28 9 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. 10 Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). When determining whether “exceptional 11 circumstances” exist, the court must consider plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits as 12 well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the 13 legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (district court did not 14 abuse discretion in declining to appoint counsel). The burden of demonstrating exceptional 15 circumstances is on the plaintiff. Id. Circumstances common to most prisoners, such as lack of 16 legal education and limited law library access, do not establish exceptional circumstances that 17 warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. 19 Plaintiff’s request will be denied for a couple of reasons. First, the fact that this case is 20 now at the exhaustion-based motion for summary judgment phase of the proceedings indicates 21 that Plaintiff has raised some viable claims upon which he may able to receive relief on their 22 merits. In addition, the fact that this case has been on the Court’s docket since 2021, and Plaintiff 23 has been able to manage it without legal help since then, is support for the Court’s finding that 24 Plaintiff has a satisfactory ability to prosecute this case and articulate his claims on his own, 25 despite the alleged existence of complex legal issues. 26 For these reasons, having considered the factors under Palmer, the Court finds that 27 1 The document that Plaintiff has provided in support of his claim that he has a mental 28 developmental disability is unreadable. See ECF No. 66 at 4. 1 Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances warranting the 2 appointment of counsel at this time. Therefore, his motion for the appointment of counsel will be 3 denied. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of 5 counsel (ECF No. 66) is DENIED without prejudice. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8
9 Dated: August 8, 2025 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
(PC) Gibson v. Castellanos ((PC) Gibson v. Castellanos) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.