Opinion
2:19-CV-1058-KJM-DMC
09-22-2021
CHRISTOPHER DALE STAFFIN, Plaintiff, v. TOM BOSENKO, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
DENNIS M. COTA, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil action. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion, ECF No. 10, for the appointment of counsel.
The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent plaintiffs in civil actions. See e.g. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990).
In the present case, the Court does not at this time find the required exceptional circumstances. In his motion, Plaintiff states that he can “prove ongoing harassment and civil rights violations by Shasta County Sheriff's Office.” ECF No. 10. He seeks appointment of counsel from “elsewhere than Shasta County and its present political climate.” Id. Plaintiff has not outlined any circumstances which the Court could consider exceptional and warranting the appointment of counsel. A review of the docket reflects that Plaintiff has thus far been able to articulate his claims and, at this juncture, before Plaintiff has filed a second amended complaint as directed by the Court on August 10, 2021, the Court cannot say that Plaintiff has stated any cognizable claims let alone claims upon which he has a likelihood of success on the merits.
The Court will sua sponte extend the time for Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff s motion for the appointment of counsel, ECF No. 10, is denied; and
2. Plaintiff shall file a second amended complaint within 30 days of the date of this order.