(PC) Ruiz v. Gates

Opinion

1 2

7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROGELIO MAY RUIZ, No. 2:19-CV-2518-KJM-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 S. GATES, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel, 19 ECF No. 37. 20 The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to 21 require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. See Mallard v. United States Dist. 22 Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the 23 voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 24 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). 25 A finding of “exceptional circumstances” requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success 26 on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims on his own in light of the 27 complexity of the legal issues involved. See Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017. Neither factor is 28 dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision. See id. In Terrell, the Ninth Circuit concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion with respect to appointment of counsel because: ° ... Terrell demonstrated sufficient writing ability and legal knowledge to 4 articulate his claim. The facts he alleged and the issues he raised were not of substantial complexity. The compelling evidence against Terrell made it 5 extremely unlikely that he would succeed on the merits. 6 Id. at 1017. 7 In the present case, the Court does not at this time find the required exceptional g | circumstances. Specifically, as to success on the merits, Plaintiff has not demonstrated any 9 | particular need for counsel. Plaintiff has demonstrated an adequate ability — with assistance — to 10 | articulate his position in English through his Complaint, First Amended Complaint, and other 11 | motions and requests. Submitting a request partially in Spanish, as he does now, does not create 12 | an exceptional circumstance meriting the appointment of counsel. Finally, Plaintiff alleges 13 | straightforward constitutional violations of medical care standards. The factual and legal issues 14 | involved in this case are thus not unusually complex. 15 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs request for the 16 | appointment of counsel, ECF No. 37, is denied. 17 18 | Dated: June 3, 2022 19 DENNIS M. COTA 0 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28