Opinion
2:20-cv-1516 JAM AC P
12-20-2021
JAMES KESTER, Plaintiff, v. KOKOR, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action, has requested appointment of counsel. ECF No. 27. 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 1 exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel.
Plaintiff requests counsel on the grounds that the issues are complex and he is unable to afford an attorney. ECF No. 27. At this stage, the court does not find that the issues are overly complex, and plaintiff has thus far demonstrated that he is capable of articulating his claims without assistance. Plaintiff has therefore failed to show the existence of extraordinary circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for the appointment of counsel, ECF No. 27, is DENIED. 2