Williams v. McCoy

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * *

4 RONALD WILLIAMS, Case No. 3:22-CV-00376-ART-CLB

5 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL 6 v. [ECF No. 39] 7 K. MCCOY, et. al.,

8 Defendants.

9 10 Before the Court is Plaintiff Ronald Williams’s (“Williams”) motion for appointment 11 of counsel. (ECF No. 39). For the reasons discussed below, the motion for appointment 12 of counsel, (ECF No. 39), is denied. 13 There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a § 1983 action. E.g., Rand 14 v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), opinion reinstated in pertinent part, 154 15 F.3d 952, 954 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). The provision in 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(1) gives 16 the court discretion to “request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford 17 counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); see, e.g., Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 18 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc.) While the decision to request counsel lies within the discretion 19 of the district court, the court may exercise this discretion to request counsel only under 20 “exceptional circumstances.” Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). 21 A finding of “exceptional circumstances” requires the court to evaluate (1) the 22 plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits and (2) the Plaintiff’s ability to articulate his 23 claims pro se considering the complexity of the legal issues involved. 24 Id. (quoting Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331) (internal quotation marks omitted). Neither factor 25 is dispositive, and both factors must be considered before a court decides. Id. The 26 difficulties every litigant faces when proceeding pro se does not qualify as an exceptional 27 circumstance. Wood v. Housewright, 900 F. 2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). While 1 a benefit does not rise to the level of “exceptional circumstances.” Rand, 113 F.3d at ? 1525. Rather, the plaintiff must demonstrate that he is unable to articulate his claims due to their complexity. /d. 4 The motion for appointment of counsel states Williams is unable to afford counsel, 5| the substantive issues and procedural matters are too complex for □□□□□□□□□□ 6 | comprehension and abilities, and by reason of his incarceration, Williams cannot investigate. (ECF No. 39.) Williams has filed two other motions for appointment of 8 counsel, (ECF Nos. 4, 24), which the Court also denied. (ECF Nos. 11, 25.) 9 As the Court has previously found, exceptional circumstances do not exist in this 10 instance. Williams only makes conclusory assertions that this case is complex, however 14 this case is limited to an Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim, and two

10 First Amendment retaliation claims. (ECF No. 19.) These claims do not involve complex 13 issues, nor will they require expert assistance to understand. Moreover, throughout the pendency of this action, Williams has demonstrated that " he can articulate his claims to the Court. While Williams contends that he has limited " knowledge in these types of proceedings, such lack of education and experience is 16 unexceptional compared to most prisoner civil rights cases. Because Williams has not 7 demonstrated exceptional circumstances, the Court DENIES the motion. (ECF No. 39). 18 DATED: November 20, 2023 19 » 20 21 UNITED STATES\MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28