(PC) Shepherd v. Nueschmid

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: November 5, 2020
• Docket: 2:19-cv-00084
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CAMERON SHEPHERD, No. 2:19-cv-0084 JAM DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 A. CORNWELL, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action, has requested 18 appointment of counsel and an extension of time to respond to discovery. 19 The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require 20 counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 21 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the district court may request the 22 voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 23 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). 24 The test for exceptional circumstances requires the court to evaluate the plaintiff’s 25 likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in 26 light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 27 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Circumstances 28 common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not 1 | establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of 2 || counsel. Inthe present case, plaintiff provides no basis for the appointment of counsel besides 3 || the statement that he is in the prison’s mental health program. This court does not find the 4 | required exceptional circumstances. 5 Plaintiff has also requested an extension of time to respond to defendant’s request for 6 | production of documents and first set of interrogatories. Good cause appearing, his request will 7 | be granted. 8 Accordingly, IT 1S HEREBY ORDERED that: 9 1. Plamtiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 51) is denied. 10 2. Plamtiff’s motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 51) is granted; and 11 3. By December 2, 2020, plaintiff shall serve his response to defendant’s request for 12 | production of documents and first set of interrogatories. 13 | Dated: November 5, 2020 14 15 Dies ONIEED Sis MAGISTRATE DB/prisoner-civil rights/shep0084.31+36res - 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28