(PC) Simmons v. Shasta County District Attorney

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 ARRON THOMAS SIMMONS, No. 2:21-cv-0242 KJM AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ATTORNEY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff has requested the appointment of counsel. ECF No. 11. The United States 18 Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent 19 prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In 20 certain exceptional circumstances, the district court may request the voluntary assistance of 21 counsel pursuant to 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). 23 “When determining whether ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist, a court must consider ‘the 24 likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims 25 pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 26 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). The burden 27 of demonstrating exceptional circumstances is on the plaintiff. Id. Circumstances common to 28 most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not establish 1 | exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. 2 In light of the pending recommendation that this action be dismissed without leave to 3 || amend for failure to state a claim, ECF No. 6, it does not appear that plaintiff has any likelihood 4 || of success on the merits and appointment of counsel is therefore not warranted. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs request for the appointment of 6 || counsel, ECF No. 11, is DENIED. 7 || DATED: March 24, 2021 ~ 8 Htttenr— Lhor—e_ ALLISON CLAIRE 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28