Villalobos v. Bosenko

Full title: RAMON VILLALOBOS, Plaintiff, v. TOM BOSENKO, et al., Defendants.

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: May 18, 2015

2:13-cv-00109 DAD P (E.D. Cal. May. 18, 2015)

Opinion

RAMON VILLALOBOS, Plaintiff, v. TOM BOSENKO, et al., Defendants. No. 2:13-cv-00109 DAD P United States District Court, E.D. California. May 18, 2015

          ORDER

          DALE A. DROZD, Magistrate Judge.

         Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action, has requested appointment of counsel.

         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).

         The test for exceptional circumstances requires the court to evaluate the plaintiff's likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). 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. In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances.

         Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's March 30, 2015 motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 23) is denied.