From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Curley v. Dutta

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 31, 2020
No. 2:17-cv-0105 WBS AC P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2020)

Opinion

No. 2:17-cv-0105 WBS AC P

03-31-2020

KEVIN CURLEY, Plaintiff, v. RAJA DUTTA, Defendant.


ORDER

Plaintiff has requested the appointment of counsel. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the district court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 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, a court must consider 'the 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) (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). 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 would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel.

Plaintiff seeks appointment of counsel on the grounds that his imprisonment will greatly limit his ability to litigate, the issues are complex and will require significant research and investigation, he has limited law library access and knowledge of the law, and an attorney would be better able to present evidence and cross examine witnesses. ECF No. 37 at 1-2. Plaintiff has previously been advised that these circumstances are common to most prisoners and therefore do not warrant the appointment of counsel. ECF No. 28 at 2. Furthermore, it has not yet been determined that this case will go to trial, so any request for counsel based upon trial needs is premature. Finally, although plaintiff also alleges that the prison he is housed at is under lockdown and running on a modified program due to the coronavirus, further limiting his law library access, this situation is currently common to most prisoners. Additionally, it is not clear that requests for extensions of time, as needed, would be unable to address the delays plaintiff is experiencing in his access to the law library without the need to appoint counsel.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's request for the appointment of counsel, ECF No. 37, is denied. DATED: March 31, 2020

/s/_________

ALLISON CLAIRE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Curley v. Dutta

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 31, 2020
No. 2:17-cv-0105 WBS AC P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2020)
Case details for

Curley v. Dutta

Case Details

Full title:KEVIN CURLEY, Plaintiff, v. RAJA DUTTA, Defendant.

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

Date published: Mar 31, 2020

Citations

No. 2:17-cv-0105 WBS AC P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2020)