From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cordero v. Guzman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jun 26, 2015
No. 2:13-cv-1551 JAM KJN P (E.D. Cal. Jun. 26, 2015)

Opinion

No. 2:13-cv-1551 JAM KJN P

06-26-2015

RANDY M. CORDERO, Plaintiff, v. NICK GUZMAN, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff requests that the court appoint counsel. District courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional circumstances, the court may request an attorney to voluntarily represent such a plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). When determining whether "exceptional circumstances" exist, the court must consider plaintiff's likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (district court did not abuse discretion in declining to appoint counsel). The burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances is on the plaintiff. Id. Circumstances common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not establish exceptional circumstances that warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel.

Having considered the factors under Palmer, the court finds that plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel at this time. While the undersigned has separately scheduled an evidentiary hearing to address whether plaintiff administratively exhausted his claims against defendant Parra, the issues to be addressed at the evidentiary hearing are not complex. Plaintiff has competently represented himself in this action and does not require appointment of counsel for the evidentiary hearing.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's May 18, 2015 motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 70) is denied without prejudice. Dated: June 26, 2015

/s/_________

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
cord1551.31.kjn


Summaries of

Cordero v. Guzman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jun 26, 2015
No. 2:13-cv-1551 JAM KJN P (E.D. Cal. Jun. 26, 2015)
Case details for

Cordero v. Guzman

Case Details

Full title:RANDY M. CORDERO, Plaintiff, v. NICK GUZMAN, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jun 26, 2015

Citations

No. 2:13-cv-1551 JAM KJN P (E.D. Cal. Jun. 26, 2015)