Opinion
1:18-cv-00507-AWI-SAB (PC)
04-20-2022
JERRY DILLINGHAM, Plaintiff, v. N. EMERSON, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S SIXTH MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE (ECF No. 126)
Plaintiff Jerry Dillingham is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's sixth motion for appointment of counsel, filed April 18, 2022.
As Plaintiff was previously advised, he does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannoi require any attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counse pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether “exceptional circumstances exist, the district court mus evaluate both the likelihood of success on the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
The Court has limited resources in appointing counsel in prisoner cases in this District, and Plaintiff's present motion does not meet the required exception circumstances to warrant appointment of counsel. As with Plaintiff's prior motions for appointment of counsel, he contends that he is unable to litigate this action because he is illiterate, has mental disabilities, requires the assistance of another individual to draft his documents, and is physically disabled. Even if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. Circumstances common to most prisoners, such as a lack of education or limited law library access, do not alone establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. The legal issues present in this action are not complex. Further, there is no indication from the record that Plaintiff has been unable to adequately articulate claims and prosecute this action-whether alone or with other assistance. Indeed, the record in this case reveals that Plaintiff has been able to thoroughly litigate this action, as he has filed various motions, including a motion to compel. (ECF No. 102.) Thus, there is no showing that Plaintiff has been prevented from pursuing this case. Accordingly, Plaintiff's sixth motion for appointment of counsel shall be denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.