UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SACRAMENTO DIVISION
August 3, 2009
PAUL ANTHONY RUPE, PLAINTIFF,
M. CATE, SECRETARY OF CORRECTIONS, ET. AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Edward F. Shea United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Before the Court, without oral argument, is pro se Plaintiff Paul Anthony Rupe's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Ct. Rec. 30), filed July 9, 2009. District courts have discretion to designate counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) only under exceptional circumstances. Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). Determining whether exceptional circumstances exist requires evaluating "the likelihood of success on the merits and plaintiff's ability to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved." Id. (citation omitted).
The Court reviewed Plaintiff's Complaint and finds that Plaintiff is able to clearly articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the First and Fourteenth Amendment issues involved. Given the Court's findings, and the fact that the Court previously provided Plaintiff with instructions on how to present a sufficient 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim, the record does not reflect exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel to assist Plaintiff at this time.*fn1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Ct. Rec. 30) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order and forward a copy to Plaintiff.