Ronnie Cherokee Brown v. M. Singh, et al.

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 RONNIE CHEROKEE BROWN, Case No. 2:25-cv-1353-DC-JDP (P) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 M. SINGH, et al., 15 Defendants. [16] 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . 18 Plaintiff requests that the court appoint counsel. District courts lack authority to require counsel 19 to represent indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 20 U.S. 296 , 298 (1989). In exceptional circumstances, the court may request an attorney to 21 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 common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not 1 | establish exceptional circumstances that warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. 2 Having considered the factors under Palmer, the court finds that plaintiff has failed to 3 | meet his burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of 4 | counsel at this time. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motions for the appointment of 6 | counsel, ECF Nos. 17 & 19, are DENIED without prejudice. 7 | IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 | Dated: _ October 2, 2025 __ yuan Ws Se JEREMY D. PETERSON 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE