IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
November 21, 2012
WALTER LANGSTON, PLAINTIFF,
ARTURO REYES ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action. On November 9, 2012, plaintiff requested appointment of counsel. Plaintiff is advised that back on August 3, 2011, the court issued order dismissing this case without prejudice. Judgment was entered that same day and this civil rights action was closed.
Moreover, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. See 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). See 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, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's November 9, 2012 (Dkt. No. 11) for appointment of counsel is DENIED. Furthermore, plaintiff is advised that any further documents filed by him will be disregarded and no further orders will issue in response to future filings in light of the fact that this action was dismissed and closed on August 3, 2011.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.