Opinion
No. CIV S-07-2545 MCE DAD P.
May 7, 2008
ORDER
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action, has filed a motion for 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, the court will deny plaintiff's motion.
Plaintiff is reminded that, on April 2, 2008, defendants filed a motion to dismiss in this case. Plaintiff has not yet filed opposition to the motion. If plaintiff needs additional time to respond to the motion, he should file a request for an extension of time. Otherwise, plaintiff's failure to file an opposition will be deemed as a statement of non-opposition and may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed pursuant Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's May 1, 2008 motion for appointment of counsel is denied.