From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gleason v. Lindquist

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 8, 2020
No. 2:19-cv-1203 JAM AC P (E.D. Cal. May. 8, 2020)

Opinion

No. 2:19-cv-1203 JAM AC P

05-08-2020

STANLEY GLEASON, Plaintiff, v. T. LINDQUIST, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action, has requested appointment of counsel, as well as a scheduling order, pretrial conference, and consent decree for injunction.

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 has not provided any reasons why appointment of counsel would be warranted in this case, and the motion will therefore be denied.

With respect to plaintiff's other requests, findings and recommendations on his motions for injunctive relief are currently pending before the District Judge, ECF No. 31, and requests for a scheduling order and pretrial conference are both premature. These requests will therefore be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion at ECF No. 42 is denied in its entirety. DATED: May 8, 2020

/s/_________

ALLISON CLAIRE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Gleason v. Lindquist

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 8, 2020
No. 2:19-cv-1203 JAM AC P (E.D. Cal. May. 8, 2020)
Case details for

Gleason v. Lindquist

Case Details

Full title:STANLEY GLEASON, Plaintiff, v. T. LINDQUIST, et al., Defendants.

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

Date published: May 8, 2020

Citations

No. 2:19-cv-1203 JAM AC P (E.D. Cal. May. 8, 2020)