(PC) Jones v. Shute

Opinion

MARCELL JONES, No. 2:22-cv-1384 DB P Plaintiff, v. ORDER MICHELLE SHUTE, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action, has requested appointment of counsel. Plaintiff states that he has an eye condition that severely limits his vision and causes him difficulty focusing. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the district court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). The test for exceptional circumstances requires the court to evaluate the plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). This court is sympathetic to the difficulties plaintiff must face in preparing his pleadings. However, plaintiff more than adequately responded to the court’s initial screening order. His first amended complaint is sixteen pages long. It details his medical condition and explains defendants’ responses to that condition. This court finds that, at the present time, plaintiff is sufficiently able to articulate his claims. This court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 7) is denied without prejudice to its renewal at a later stage of these proceedings. Dated: October 31, 2022 ll ‘BORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DLB:9 DB prisoner inbox/civil rights/R/jone1384.31