From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brooks v. Covello

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 5, 2021
2:20-CV-1573-WBS-DMC-P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2021)

Opinion

2:20-CV-1573-WBS-DMC-P

11-05-2021

WILLIE LEE BROOKS, II, Plaintiff, v. COVELLO, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

DENNIS M. COTA, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion, ECF No. 43, for the appointment of counsel.

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in civil rights 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.

Plaintiffs motion in its entirety states, “I would like to know if the court has a panel of attorneys that accept civil rights cases. Please let me know. I have motioned the court for appointment of counsel. Thank you.” See ECF No. 43, pg. 1. Plaintiff does not otherwise explain why appointment of counsel is warranted. Given that Plaintiff has not presented anything demonstrating some extraordinary circumstance or his likelihood of success on the merits, and given Plaintiffs ability thus far to articulate his claims, the Court will not grant Plaintiffs motion at this time.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs request for the appointment of counsel, ECF No. 43, is denied.


Summaries of

Brooks v. Covello

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 5, 2021
2:20-CV-1573-WBS-DMC-P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2021)
Case details for

Brooks v. Covello

Case Details

Full title:WILLIE LEE BROOKS, II, Plaintiff, v. COVELLO, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Nov 5, 2021

Citations

2:20-CV-1573-WBS-DMC-P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2021)