(PC) Ransom v. Spinelli

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: April 2, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00531
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT L. RANSOM, No. 2:25-cv-0531 AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 K. SPINELLI, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a motion requesting that the court 18 appoint counsel. ECF No. 22. District courts lack authority to require counsel to represent 19 indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 20 (1989). In exceptional circumstances, the court may request an attorney to voluntarily represent 21 such a plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 22 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). When determining 23 whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court must consider plaintiff’s likelihood of 24 success on the merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of 25 the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) 26 (district court did not abuse discretion in declining to appoint counsel). The burden of 27 demonstrating exceptional circumstances is on the plaintiff. Id. Circumstances common to most 28 /// 1 | prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not establish 2 || exceptional circumstances that warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. 3 Plaintiff requests the appointment of counsel based on his indigence, lack of legal 4 || knowledge, and limited reading comprehension. ECF No. 22 at 2. He also asserts that the issues 5 || are complex and he requires assistance in conducting discovery. Id. The issues identified by 6 || plaintiff are common to most prisoners. Moreover, this case has been referred to early ADR and 7 || temporarily stayed. ECF No. 23. As a result, there is currently nothing for plaintiff to do, and in 8 | the event this case is set for a settlement conference, there is no indication that plaintiff would be 9 || unable to proceed at the settlement conference without representation. Having considered the 10 || factors under Palmer, the court finds that plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating 11 || exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel at this time. 12 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for the appointment of 13 || counsel (ECF No. 22) is DENIED without prejudice. 14 | DATED: April 1, 2025 15 ~ 16 ththienr—Chnp—e_ ALLISON CLAIRE 17 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28