Opinion

(PC) Brown v. Henry

Court
District Court, E.D. California
Filed
Apr 1, 2020
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 17.4%

district court did not abuse discretion in declining to appoint counsel

How later courts described this case

  • district court did not abuse discretion in declining to appoint counsel

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 RONNIE CHEROKEE BROWN, No. 2:19-cv-2304 TLN KJN P

12 Plaintiff,

13 v. ORDER

14 D. HENRY,

15 Defendant.

16

17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se, in an action brought under 42 U.S.C.

18 § 1983. Plaintiff requests that the court appoint counsel. District courts lack authority to require

19 counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist.

20 Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional circumstances, the court may request an attorney

21 to voluntarily represent such a plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d

22 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990).

23 When determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court must consider plaintiff’s

24 likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro

25 se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970

26 (9th Cir. 2009) (district court did not abuse discretion in declining to appoint counsel). The

27 burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances is on the plaintiff. Id. Circumstances

28 ////

1 | common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not

2 | establish exceptional circumstances that warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel.

3 Having considered the factors under Palmer, the court finds that plaintiff has failed to

4 | meet his burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of

5 | counsel at this time.

6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for the appointment of

7 | counsel (ECF No. 23) is denied without prejudice.

8 | Dated: April 1, 2020

Fens Arn

10 KENDALL J. NE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11

D /brow2304.31

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.