Opinion
2:23-cv-0040 DAD CKD P
08-29-2023
DAVID BENNETT, Plaintiff, v. GAVIN NEWSOM, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
CAROLYN K. DELANEY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff has filed a motion for a “protective order.” While not clear, it appears plaintiff asks that the court redact information which the court deems “sensitive,” but was provided by plaintiff in the motion he filed on March 30, 2023. The court will not redact information that plaintiff chose to place in the record of the court. If plaintiff wishes to withdraw the motion and have the court strike the motion from the docket, he may so request.
Plaintiff also requests the appointment of 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.
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's April 9, 2023 motion for a “protective order” (ECF No. 9) is denied.
2. Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 10) is denied.