From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Coleman v. Virga

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 26, 2020
No. 2:17-cv-0851 KJM KJN P (E.D. Cal. May. 26, 2020)

Opinion

No. 2:17-cv-0851 KJM KJN P

05-26-2020

ROBERT COLEMAN, Plaintiff, v. T. VIRGA, 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.

In the motion for appointment of counsel, plaintiff alleges that restrictions imposed due to COVID 19 will hinder his attempts to prepare an opposition to a dispositive motion filed by defendants. Plaintiff may file a request for extension of time to file his opposition if he requires additional time to prepare his opposition.

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.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 77) is denied without prejudice. Dated: May 26, 2020

/s/_________

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE cole0851.31(2)


Summaries of

Coleman v. Virga

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 26, 2020
No. 2:17-cv-0851 KJM KJN P (E.D. Cal. May. 26, 2020)
Case details for

Coleman v. Virga

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT COLEMAN, Plaintiff, v. T. VIRGA, et al., Defendants.

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

Date published: May 26, 2020

Citations

No. 2:17-cv-0851 KJM KJN P (E.D. Cal. May. 26, 2020)