(PC) Latten v. Benavidez

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: February 4, 2025
• Docket: 2:23-cv-01879
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 WILLIAM ANGELO LATTEN, JR., No. 2:23-cv-1879 DAD SCR P 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER 13 J. BENAVIDEZ, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 17 Plaintiff requests that the court appoint counsel. ECF No. 29. District courts lack authority under 18 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. 19 Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional circumstances, the 20 court may request an attorney to voluntarily represent such a plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. § 21 1915(e)(1); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 22 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). The test for exceptional circumstances requires the court to 23 evaluate the plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to 24 articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Wilborn v. 25 Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 26 1983). Circumstances common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law 27 library access, do not establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for the 28 voluntary assistance of counsel. Wood, 900 F.2d at 1335; Riley v. Franke, 340 F. Supp. 3d 783, 1 || 787 (E.D. Wis. 2018). Having considered all these factors, the court finds that plaintiff has failed 2 || to meet his burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of 3 || counsel at this time. 4 Plaintiffs request for appointment of counsel is submitted on a state court form that 5 || checks boxes indicating plaintiff is applying for “conservatorship” and is requesting appointment 6 || of counsel under the California Probate Code for “petitioner” who is “alleged to lack capacity.” 7 || The undersigned recognizes that appointed counsel may be required in a civil proceeding as an 8 || accommodation for a litigant who is disabled. See Franco-Gonzalez v. Holder, No. 10-cv-02211 9 | DMG (DTBx), 2013 WL 3674492, at *3-*9 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2013) (granting summary 10 || judgment to class of mentally disabled individuals in civil immigration proceedings on their 11 || request for appointed representatives under the Rehabilitation Act). Due process may also require 12 | appointment of counsel in certain proceedings. See Turner v. Rogers, 564 U.S. 431, 444-45 13 | (2011) (analyzing request for appointment of counsel in civil proceeding under the Mathews v. 14 | Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), procedural due process framework). However, plaintiff does not 15 | include any contextual information about his request for appointment of counsel, such as mental 16 | health record or other records relevant to his use of the state court form. Plaintiff may renew his 17 || request for appointment of counsel after the stay of this case is lifted by submitting additional 18 | information relevant to his legal capacity. 19 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for the appointment of 20 || counsel (ECF No. 29) is denied without prejudice to renewal after the stay of this case is lifted. 21 | DATED: February 4, 2025 22 kmh 24 SEAN C. RIORDAN 25 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28