The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10 DEREK MATTHEWS, No. 2:20-cv-2515 JAM DB P
11 Plaintiff,
12 v. ORDER
13 EDMUND G. BROWN, et al.,
14 Defendants.
15
16 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action, has requested
17 appointment of counsel.
18 The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require
19 counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490
20 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the district court may request the
21 voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 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 The test for exceptional circumstances requires the court to evaluate the plaintiff’s
24 likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in
25 light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328,
26 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Circumstances
27 common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not
28 establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of
1 | counsel. Inthe present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances.
2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for the appointment of
3 || counsel (ECF No. 111) is denied.
4 | Dated: October 8, 2021
5
6
4 ORAH BARNES
pLET UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
8 || matt2515.31
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28