ORDER

ALLISON CLAIRE, Magistrate Judge.

During a closed hearing on November 2, 2016, the court granted counsels' motion to withdraw and plaintiff was given sixty days to retain replacement counsel. ECF No. 100. Plaintiff was cautioned that if replacement counsel did not file a notice of appearance by January 3, 2017, he would have to continue proceeding in pro se. Id. He was further cautioned that the court would only grant an extension of time if he was making concrete progress toward securing counsel. Id.

On December 21, 2016, the court granted plaintiff a thirty-day extension of the time for replacement counsel to make an appearance, based on plaintiff's representation that the attorneys he had contacted were not willing to look at his case until after the holidays. ECF No. 102. Plaintiff was warned that no further extensions would be granted unless he showed that he was close to hiring new counsel. Id. Plaintiff now requests that the court appoint counsel to represent him going forward. ECF No. 103.

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).

"When determining whether `exceptional circumstances' exist, a court must consider `the 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) (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). 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 would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel.

In his request, plaintiff alleges mishandling of his case, and once again refers to the court's previous comment that this case was originally being handled as if plaintiff was proceeding in pro se. ECF No. 103. Plaintiff misunderstands the court's previous comment. In stating that the case was being handled as if plaintiff were proceeding pro se, the court was referring to the way in which the case was being handled administratively. The court was not commenting on the quality of counsel's representation. While plaintiff is correct that his previous counsel was sanctioned, the sanction was for $250.00 jointly for failing to respond to defendants' motion to dismiss and failing to appear at the hearing on the motion. ECF No. 68. It was not for $500.00 each for "moving forward as if a pro per was running the suit" as plaintiff appears to believe. ECF No. 103. Regardless, retained counsels' alleged mishandling of the case and the fact that they were sanctioned does not create an exceptional circumstance warranting a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. Nor does it change the potential merit of plaintiff's claims, and therefore his likelihood of success on those claims, or his ability to articulate those claims on his own. On the current record, the court is unable to assess the likelihood of success on the merits and plaintiff appears able to adequately express himself and his positions.

Plaintiff has not met his burden of showing that extraordinary circumstances exist in this case and his request for appointment of counsel will be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 103) is denied.

2. The deadline for replacement counsel to appear in this case will remain February 2, 2017. If replacement counsel does not appear by that date, plaintiff shall continue to proceed in pro se.