(PC) Medina v. Aguilar

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: November 19, 2019
• Docket: 2:18-cv-02924
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GASPAR MEDINA, No. 2:18-cv-2924 DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 AGUILAR, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action, has requested 18 appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 13). A review of plaintiff’s motion indicates that he believes 19 that an attorney is automatically appointed to litigants at the time a complaint is filed. See 20 generally id. He states that he was recently told he had been scheduled for an attorney visit, but it 21 never took place. See generally id. 22 The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require 23 counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 24 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the district court may request the 25 voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 26 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). 27 The test for exceptional circumstances requires the court to evaluate the plaintiff’s 28 likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in 1 | light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 2 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Circumstances 3 || common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not 4 | establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of 5 counsel. 6 A cursory review of plaintiff's complaint which has yet to be screened indicates that he 7 | has raised one claim — that of excessive force — against one defendant. The court is able to 8 | understand the facts as alleged, and the Eighth Amendment claim appears to be a straightforward 9 | one. For these reasons, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for the appointment of 11 counsel, filed November 14, 2019 (ECF No. 13), is DENIED, without prejudice. 12 || Dated: November 18, 2019 13 14 15 ‘BORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 | piB:13 DB/ORDERS/ORDERS.PRISONER.CIVIL RIGHTS/medi2924.3 1 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28