From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brownlee v. Jones

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Apr 11, 2018
No. 2:17-cv-0872 CKD P (E.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2018)

Opinion

No. 2:17-cv-0872 CKD P

04-11-2018

BENJAMIN JUSTIN BROWNLEE, Plaintiff, v. SCOTT JONES, 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.

Plaintiff has also requested a court-appointed investigator, large print material, and phone access. The expenditure of public funds on behalf of an indigent litigant is proper only when authorized by Congress. Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210 (9th Cir. 1989). The in forma pauperis statute does not authorize the expenditure of public funds for investigators or the other requested items. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's request for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 27) is denied; and

2. Plaintiff's request for an investigator, large print materials, and phone access (ECF No. 27) is also denied. Dated: April 11, 2018

/s/_________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12/brow0872.31(2)


Summaries of

Brownlee v. Jones

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Apr 11, 2018
No. 2:17-cv-0872 CKD P (E.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2018)
Case details for

Brownlee v. Jones

Case Details

Full title:BENJAMIN JUSTIN BROWNLEE, Plaintiff, v. SCOTT JONES, et al., Defendants.

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

Date published: Apr 11, 2018

Citations

No. 2:17-cv-0872 CKD P (E.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2018)