(PC) Patton v. Denberg
This text of (PC) Patton v. Denberg ((PC) Patton v. Denberg) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 MICHAEL PATTON, No. 2:24-cv-2982 SCR P 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER 13 DENBERG, 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 asks the court to appoint counsel. District courts lack authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 18 to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States 19 Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional circumstances, the court may request an 20 attorney to voluntarily represent such a plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Terrell v. Brewer, 21 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 22 1990). When determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court must consider 23 plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his 24 claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 25 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (district court did not abuse discretion in declining to appoint counsel). 26 The burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances is on the plaintiff. Id. Circumstances 27 common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not 28 establish exceptional circumstances that warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. 1 In the present case, the court has not yet screened plaintiff's complaint so has not 2 || determined whether there is a likelihood plaintiff may succeed on the merits. Therefore, 3 | plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel is premature. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for the appointment of 5 | counsel (ECF No. 3) is denied without prejudice. 6 | Dated: November 22, 2024 7 md SEAN C. RIORDAN 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
(PC) Patton v. Denberg, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pc-patton-v-denberg-caed-2024.