From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Herrera v. Candia

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jul 11, 2016
No. 2:16-cv-0938 GEB KJN P (E.D. Cal. Jul. 11, 2016)

Opinion

No. 2:16-cv-0938 GEB KJN P

07-11-2016

ARMANDO HERRERA, Plaintiff, v. CANDIA, 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.

At the present time, the court is unable to determine whether plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims. Plaintiff has not yet submitted the filing fee or an application to proceed in forma pauperis; therefore, no screening of the complaint has occurred. Plaintiff must comply with the court's May 9, 2016 order before the court can screen the complaint.

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. 14) is denied without prejudice. Dated: July 11, 2016

/s/_________

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE herr0938.31kjn


Summaries of

Herrera v. Candia

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jul 11, 2016
No. 2:16-cv-0938 GEB KJN P (E.D. Cal. Jul. 11, 2016)
Case details for

Herrera v. Candia

Case Details

Full title:ARMANDO HERRERA, Plaintiff, v. CANDIA, et al., Defendants.

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

Date published: Jul 11, 2016

Citations

No. 2:16-cv-0938 GEB KJN P (E.D. Cal. Jul. 11, 2016)