(PC) Ruiz v. Woodfill, No. 2:2019cv02118 - Document 60 (E.D. Cal. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 08/06/21 DENYING 59 MOTION to APPOINT COUNSEL and GRANTING 59 Motion for Extension of time. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to file objections to the findings and recommendations. (Plummer, M) Modified on 8/6/2021 (Plummer, M).
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Ruiz v. Woodfill Doc. 60 Case 2:19-cv-02118-MCE-KJN Document 60 Filed 08/06/21 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROGELIO MAY RUIZ, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 D. WOODFILL, 15 No. 2:19-cv-2118 MCE KJN P ORDER Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se, in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. 18 § 1983. Plaintiff requests that the court appoint an attorney interpreter; the court construes the 19 request as a request for counsel. District courts lack authority to require counsel to represent 20 indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 21 (1989). In exceptional circumstances, the court may request an attorney to voluntarily represent 22 such a plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 23 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). When determining 24 whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court must consider plaintiff’s likelihood of 25 success on the merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of 26 the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) 27 (district court did not abuse discretion in declining to appoint counsel). The burden of 28 demonstrating exceptional circumstances is on the plaintiff. Id. Circumstances common to most 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:19-cv-02118-MCE-KJN Document 60 Filed 08/06/21 Page 2 of 2 1 prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not establish 2 exceptional circumstances that warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. 3 Having considered the factors under Palmer, the court finds that plaintiff failed to meet his 4 burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel at this 5 time. Indeed, plaintiff was previously denied the appointment of counsel, as well as an 6 interpreter. (ECF No. 52.) 7 8 9 10 Plaintiff also request an extension of time to file objections to the June 30, 2021, findings and recommendations. Good cause appearing, plaintiff’s request will be granted. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No.59) is denied without 11 prejudice; 12 2. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 59) is granted; and 13 3. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to file objections to 14 15 the findings and recommendations. Dated: August 6, 2021 16 17 18 19 ruiz2118.31+36 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
