(PC) Singh v. County of Sacramento

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAGHVENDRA SINGH, No. 2:22-CV-0634-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel. 19 See ECF No. 26. 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 district court may 23 request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See Terrell v. 24 Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 25 (9th Cir. 1990). The test for “exceptional circumstances” requires the Court to evaluate the 26 plaintiff’s likelihood success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims 27 on his own in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 28 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). 1 | Circumstances common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library 2 || access, do not establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary 3 || assistance of counsel. 4 In the present case, the Court does not at this time find the required exceptional 5 || circumstances. As with Plaintiff's motions for the appointment of counsel filed in related cases, 6 || Plaintiff's motion in this case does not describe exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff has 7 || demonstrated sufficient ability to articulate his claims on his own. Further, at the current stage of 8 | the proceedings before an answer has been filed or any discovery conducted, Plaintiff has not 9 || shown any particular likelihood of success on the merits. Finally, the claims in this case do not 10 || appear to be legally or factually complex. 11 The Court will address the sufficiency of Plaintiff's second amended complaint 12 || separately. 13 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for the 14 || appointment of counsel, ECF No. 26, is denied. 15 16 | Dated: November 13, 2024 SS GC M7 DENNIS M. COTA 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28