1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LAWRENCE P. HAYES, No. 2:23-CV-2380-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 FAIRFIELD CITY POLICE

DEPARTMENT,

15 Defendant. 16

17 18 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 19 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel, 20 ECF No. 18. 21 The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to 22 require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. See Mallard v. United States Dist. 23 Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the district court may 24 request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See Terrell v. 25 Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 26 (9th Cir. 1990). The test for “exceptional circumstances” requires the Court to evaluate the 27 plaintiff’s likelihood success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims 28 on his own in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 1 | 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). 2 || Circumstances common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library 3 || access, do not establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary 4 | assistance of counsel. 5 In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. 6 | Plaintiff states that he requires the assistance of counsel because he lacks legal expertise, is 7 || indigent, and is diagnosed with schizophrenia. See ECF No. 18, pg. 1-3. Plaintiff contends that 8 | his lack of legal expertise has resulted in “major mistakes,” requiring an amended complaint, and 9 || that the case will rely on eliciting expert testimony, which the Plaintiff does not have the skills to 10 || perform. See id. The Court finds that these factors represent common circumstances among 11 || mmates pursuing litigation in federal court. Indeed, filing amended complaints is often part of the 12 || legal process, whether a plaintiff is represented or not. Here, Plaintiff has plainly demonstrated 13 || with his filings that he is able to articulate his claims on his own. Plaintiff does not show that his 14 || mental health diagnosis impacts his ability to articulate these claims. Further, at the current stage 15 || of the proceedings before an answer has been filed or any discovery conducted, Plaintiff has not 16 || shown any particular likelihood of success on the merits. Finally, the Court does not find that the 17 || issues in this case are likely to involve a factually or legally complex trial. 18 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for the 19 || appointment of counsel, ECF No. 18, is denied. 20 21 || Dated: December 4, 2024 = IS Co 22 DENNIS M. COTA 3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28