(PC) Roots v. Cherian

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMES TYLER ROOTS, No. 2:23-cv-1175 CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 G. CHERIAN, 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 Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to respond to defendants’ motion to dismiss. ECF 19 No. 31. Plaintiff also filed a motion for the appointment of counsel. ECF No. 32. 20 District courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 21 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional 22 circumstances, the court may request an attorney to voluntarily represent such a plaintiff. See 28 23 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. 24 Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). When determining whether “exceptional 25 circumstances” exist, the court must consider plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits as 26 well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the 27 legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (district court did not 28 abuse discretion in declining to appoint counsel). The burden of demonstrating exceptional 1 | circumstances is on the plaintiff. Id. Circumstances common to most prisoners, such as lack of 2 || legal education and limited law library access, do not establish exceptional circumstances that 3 || warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. 4 Having considered the factors under Palmer, the court finds that plaintiff has failed to 5 || meet his burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of 6 || counsel at this time. 7 Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 1. Plaintiffs motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 32) is denied without 9 || prejudice; 10 2. Plaintiffs motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 33) is granted; and 11 3. Plaintiffis granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to file a response to 12 || defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 31). 13 | Dated: December 23, 2024 / ae □□ / a Ly a 4 CAROLYN K DELANEY 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 | 12/rootl175.31.new+36 22 23 24 25 26 27 28