(PC) Singh v. CDCR

E.D. California

(PC) Singh v. CDCR

DecidedMay 15, 2025

Docket2:24-cv-03294

StatusUnknown

This text of (PC) Singh v. CDCR ((PC) Singh v. CDCR) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

(PC) Singh v. CDCR, (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAGHVENDRA SINGH, No. 2:24-cv-3294 SCR P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 CDCR, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. 18 § 1983. Plaintiff requests that the court appoint counsel. 19 District courts lack authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to require counsel to represent 20 indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 21 (1989). In exceptional circumstances, the court may request that an attorney voluntarily represent 22 such a plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 23 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). The test for exceptional 24 circumstances requires the court to evaluate the plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits and 25 the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal 26 issues involved. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. 27 Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Circumstances common to most prisoners, such as lack 28 of legal education and limited law library access, do not establish exceptional circumstances that 1 | would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. Wood, 900 F.2d at 1335; Riley v. 2 | Franke, 340 F. Supp. 3d 783, 787 (E.D. Wis. 2018). 3 Having considered the relevant factors, the court finds that plaintiff has failed to meet his 4 || burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel at this 5 || time. 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for the appointment of 7 || counsel (ECF No. 5) is denied without prejudice. 8 | DATED: May 14, 2025 po 10 ll SEAN C. RIORDAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAGHVENDRA SINGH, No. 2:24-cv-3294 SCR P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 CDCR, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. 18 § 1983. Plaintiff requests that the court appoint counsel. 19 District courts lack authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to require counsel to represent 20 indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 21 (1989). In exceptional circumstances, the court may request that an attorney voluntarily represent 22 such a plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 23 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). The test for exceptional 24 circumstances requires the court to evaluate the plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits and 25 the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal 26 issues involved. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. 27 Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Circumstances common to most prisoners, such as lack 28 of legal education and limited law library access, do not establish exceptional circumstances that 1 | would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. Wood, 900 F.2d at 1335; Riley v. 2 | Franke, 340 F. Supp. 3d 783, 787 (E.D. Wis. 2018). 3 Having considered the relevant factors, the court finds that plaintiff has failed to meet his 4 || burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel at this 5 || time. 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for the appointment of 7 || counsel (ECF No. 5) is denied without prejudice. 8 | DATED: May 14, 2025 po 10 ll SEAN C. RIORDAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(PC) Singh v. CDCR, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pc-singh-v-cdcr-caed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack