Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01658/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01658-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL J. MITCHELL,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-08-1658 JAM DAD P

vs.

SNOWDEN, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an action filed pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. 

On June 1, 2010, defendant Compton moved to dismiss this action, arguing that

plaintiff had failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies prior to filing this suit as

required. Plaintiff failed to file an opposition to that motion to dismiss even though the court

granted him seven extensions of time to do so. Despite plaintiff’s failure to file opposition to the

pending motion, on March 7, 2011, the undersigned issued findings and recommendations

recommending that the motion to dismiss be denied. Plaintiff has since filed two more motions

for an extension of time to file his opposition. 

Since the court has already issued findings and recommendations, recommending

that defendant Compton’s motion to dismiss be denied, the court will deny plaintiff’s motions for

Case 2:08-cv-01658-JAM-DAD Document 51 Filed 03/17/11 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

an extension of time as unnecessary. However, the court once again strongly cautions plaintiff

that if he fails to comply with court orders and the Local Rules of Court in the future, the court

will recommend dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the

court’s orders. 

Also pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel. 

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel

to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. 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). 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:

1. Plaintiff’s motions for an extension of time (Doc. Nos. 48 & 49) are denied as

unnecessary; and 

2. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 50) is denied.

DATED: March 16, 2011.

DAD:9

mitc1658.36d

Case 2:08-cv-01658-JAM-DAD Document 51 Filed 03/17/11 Page 2 of 2