From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rushdan v. Win

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Sep 9, 2015
No. 2:14-cv-0853 KJN P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 9, 2015)

Opinion

No. 2:14-cv-0853 KJN P

09-09-2015

SALADIN RUSHDAN, Plaintiff, v. DR. WIN, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se, in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff requests that the court appoint counsel. District courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional circumstances, the court may request an attorney to voluntarily represent such a plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). When determining whether "exceptional circumstances" exist, the court must consider plaintiff's likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (district court did not abuse discretion in declining to appoint counsel). The burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances is on the plaintiff. Id. Circumstances common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not establish exceptional circumstances that warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel.

Having considered the factors under Palmer, the court finds that plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel at this time.

Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel also includes a request that plaintiff be allowed access to a computer and a printer. Plaintiff does not require access to a computer and printer in order to litigate this action. Accordingly, plaintiff's request for access to a computer and a printer is denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel, and for access to a computer and a printer, (ECF No. 73) is denied without prejudice. Dated: September 9, 2015

/s/_________

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
rush0853.31(2)


Summaries of

Rushdan v. Win

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Sep 9, 2015
No. 2:14-cv-0853 KJN P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 9, 2015)
Case details for

Rushdan v. Win

Case Details

Full title:SALADIN RUSHDAN, Plaintiff, v. DR. WIN, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Sep 9, 2015

Citations

No. 2:14-cv-0853 KJN P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 9, 2015)