(PC) Goodwin v. Butte County

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. California
DecidedFebruary 6, 2025
Docket2:25-cv-00320
StatusUnknown

This text of (PC) Goodwin v. Butte County ((PC) Goodwin v. Butte County) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
(PC) Goodwin v. Butte County, (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHELLE RENEE GOODWIN, No. 2:25-cv-0320 CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 BUTTE COUNTY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a county inmate proceeding pro se in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 18 1983. Plaintiff requests that the court appoint counsel. District courts lack authority to require 19 counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. 20 Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional circumstances, the court may request an attorney 21 to voluntarily represent such a plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 22 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). 23 When determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court must consider plaintiff’s 24 likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro 25 se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 26 (9th Cir. 2009) (district court did not abuse discretion in declining to appoint counsel). The 27 burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances is on the plaintiff. Id. Circumstances 28 common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not 1 | establish exceptional circumstances that warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. 2 Having considered the factors under Palmer, the court finds that plaintiff has failed to 3 || meet his burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of 4 | counsel at this time. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for the appointment of 6 || counsel (ECF No. 4) is DENIED without prejudice. 7 || Dated: February 5, 2025 / a8 } i | / p , {a ce CAROLYNK. DELANEY 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 1] 12 | any 3 good0320.3 1

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

Related

Palmer v. Valdez
560 F.3d 965 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)
Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. Parker
935 F.2d 20 (Fourth Circuit, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
(PC) Goodwin v. Butte County, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pc-goodwin-v-butte-county-caed-2025.