(PC) Lear v. Sahota

Opinion

RODERICK WILLIAM LEAR, No. 2:18-cv-3099 MCE DB P Plaintiff, v. ORDER PREETRANJAN SAHOTA, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action, has requested appointment of counsel. Plaintiff states that he lacks legal experience and feels overwhelmed by the parties’ current discovery disputes. He asks for the appointment of counsel to assist in opposing any motion for summary judgment and to assist in the settlement conference set for January 5, 2021. 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). Circumstances common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. Inthe present case, plaintiff has adequately represented himself and his difficulties in litigating this case are the same difficulties faced by almost all prisoners. The court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 76) is denied. Dated: November 5, 2020 D ORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DB iprisoner-civi rights/lear3099.31