Opinion
2:19-cv-1228 TLN KJN P
06-10-2021
JEFF HAWKINS, Plaintiff, v. M. WINKFIELD, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff is a prison inmate, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, wit h a civil rights action. On June 2, 2021, plaintiff filed his fourth motion for the appointment of counsel.
Plaintiff's previously moved for the appointment of counsel on February 16, 2021, April 23, 2021, and May 13, 2021. All motions were denied. Contrary to plaintiff 's claims in his current motion, this action proceeds solely on plaintiff's Eighth Amend ment claims against defendants Winkfield, Pendleton, Decker, Troncoso and Whipple based on the alleged use of excessive force on August 28, 2018. (ECF No. 10 at 5.) Moreover, defendants Winkf ield, Pendleton, Decker, and Whipple have moved for summary judgment based on their claim that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies through the third level of review. (ECF No. 85.) Thus, it is unclear whether this case will be heard on the merits.
Therefore, for the reasons set forth in the court's prior orders, as well as the current procedural posture of the instant action, the court again finds that plaintiff has not met his burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's request (ECF No. 88) is denied.