From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bullock v. Dowback

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Sep 28, 2023
2:23-cv-1634 TLN CKD P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 28, 2023)

Opinion

2:23-cv-1634 TLN CKD P

09-28-2023

RICHARD LEE BULLOCK, Plaintiff, v. JOHN M. DOWBACK, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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 also requests an extension of time to file an amended complaint. Good cause appearing, that request will be granted.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 10) is denied.

2. Plaintiff's request for an extension of time to file an amended complaint is granted. Plaintiff is granted 30 days within which to file his amended complaint. Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.


Summaries of

Bullock v. Dowback

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Sep 28, 2023
2:23-cv-1634 TLN CKD P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 28, 2023)
Case details for

Bullock v. Dowback

Case Details

Full title:RICHARD LEE BULLOCK, Plaintiff, v. JOHN M. DOWBACK, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Sep 28, 2023

Citations

2:23-cv-1634 TLN CKD P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 28, 2023)