(PC) Mundy v. City and County of Sacramento

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 STANLEY W. MUNDY, No. 2:23-cv-0059 TLN CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 CITY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 18 Three matters are before the court. 19 1. Request for Appointment of Counsel 20 Plaintiff requests that the court appoint counsel. District courts lack authority to require 21 counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. 22 Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional circumstances, the court may request an attorney 23 to voluntarily represent such a plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 24 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). 25 When determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court must consider plaintiff’s 26 likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro 27 se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 28 (9th Cir. 2009) (district court did not abuse discretion in declining to appoint counsel). The 1 | burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances is on the plaintiff. Id. Circumstances 2 || common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not 3 || establish exceptional circumstances that warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. 4 Having considered the factors under Palmer, the court finds that plaintiff failed to meet his 5 || burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel at this 6 || time. 7 || 2. Motion to Compel 8 Plaintiff has filed a “motion to compel” defendants to provide plaintiff with certain 9 || documents. Discovery has not commenced in this case. Typically, discovery begins after all 10 || defendants that have not been dismissed appear. That has not occurred here. Also, the initial 11 || disclosure requirements found in Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not apply in 12 || this action because plaintiff appears pro se and is in custody. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(B)(iv). For 13 || these reasons, plaintiff's motion to compel will be denied. 14 | 3. Motion for Extension 15 Plaintiff has filed a motion for an extension of time to file an amended complaint. 16 || Because plaintiff has not been granted leave to amend and he does not have a right to amend as a 17 || matter of course under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, his motion will be denied. 18 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 19 1. Plaintiffs motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 37) is denied. 20 2. Plaintiffs motion to compel (ECF No. 38) is denied. 21 3. Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 36) is denied. 22 | Dated: October 22, 2024 / ae I / dle ae 24 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 | 1 2g mund0059.abs