(PC) Hood v. Rosen

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 ALFRED FITZGERALD HOOD, Case No. 2:22-cv-1980-KJM-JDP (P) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 ROSEN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On November 12, 2024, defendants filed a motion to dismiss. ECF No. 26. Instead of 18 filing a response to the motion, plaintiff has filed a motion for appointment of counsel. ECF No. 19 27. 20 To manage its docket effectively, the court requires litigants to meet certain deadlines. 21 The court may impose sanctions, including dismissing a case, for failure to comply with its orders 22 or local rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. L.R. 110; Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. 23 Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 24 1988). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but a district court has a duty to administer 25 justice expeditiously and avoid needless burden for the parties. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 26 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. 27 I will give plaintiff a chance to explain why the court should not dismiss the case for his 28 failure to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendants’ motion. Plaintiff’s 1 failure to respond to this order will constitute a failure to comply with a court order and will result 2 in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. Accordingly, plaintiff is ordered to show 3 cause within twenty-one days why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and 4 failure to comply with local rules. Should plaintiff wish to continue with this lawsuit, he shall 5 file, within twenty-one days, an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendants’ motion. 6 Plaintiff asks that the court appoint counsel. ECF No. 27. District courts lack authority to 7 require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States 8 Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional circumstances, the court may request that 9 an attorney voluntarily represent such a plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 10 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 11 1990). When determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court must consider 12 plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his 13 claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 14 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (district court did not abuse discretion in declining to appoint counsel). 15 The burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances is on the plaintiff. Id. Circumstances 16 common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not 17 establish exceptional circumstances that warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. 18 Having considered the factors under Palmer, the court finds that plaintiff has failed to 19 meet his burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of 20 counsel at this time. 21 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 22 1. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel, ECF No. 27, is denied. 23 2. Plaintiff is ordered to file a response to defendants’ motion and a response to the 24 court’s order to show cause within twenty-one days of this order. 25 3. Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommend that this action be 26 dismissed for failure to comply with court orders and failure to prosecute. 27 28 1 > IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 ( | { Wine Dated: _ December 13, 2024 Q_—_—. 4 JEREMY D. PETERSON 5 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