(PC) Tunstall v. Bick

District Court, E.D. California·Decided March 8, 2022·No. 2:16-cv-02604·Unknown

Opinion

ROBERT WILLAIM TUNSTALL, JR., No. 2:16-CV-2604-KJM-DMC-P Plaintiff, v. ORDER JOSEPH BICK, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel, ECF No. 117. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. See Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). A finding of “exceptional circumstances” requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims on his own in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017. Neither factor is 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 articulate his claim. The facts he alleged and the issues he raised were not of substantial complexity. The compelling evidence against Terrell made it extremely unlikely that he would succeed on the merits.

Id. at 1017.

In the present case, the Court does not at this time find the required exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff's motion is unsupported by any statement of reasons why, in light of Plaintiff's ability to litigate his claims on his own and the complexity of the case, counsel should be appointed. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs request for the appointment of counsel, ECF No. 117, is denied. Dated: March 8, 2022 Ssvcqo_ DENNIS M. COTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

(PC) Tunstall v. Bick, (E.D. Cal. 2022).

(PC) Tunstall v. Bick ((PC) Tunstall v. Bick) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related