Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00517/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00517-6/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ETUATE SEKONA, No. 2:16-CV-0517-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

F. CUSTINO, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court are plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis (Doc. 56) and plaintiff’s motions for the appointment of counsel (Docs. 57 and 62). 

Also before the court is plaintiff’s motion directing defendants to respond to his amended

complaint (Doc. 61). 

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis will be denied because

plaintiff was granted in forma pauperis status on June 22, 2016, and such status has not been

revoked. 

/ / /

/ / /

1

Case 2:16-cv-00517-DMC Document 63 Filed 07/13/18 Page 1 of 3
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

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

require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. See Mallard v. United States

Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the court may

request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See Terrell v.

Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36

(9th Cir. 1990). A finding of “exceptional circumstances” requires an evaluation of both the

likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims on his

own in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017. 

Neither factor is dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision. See

id. 

In the present case, the court does not at this time find the required exceptional

circumstances. As to success on the merits, while the court has determined that plaintiff has

stated at least some cognizable claims, the court cannot say at this stage of the proceedings that

plaintiff is likely to succeed. Next, the court does not finds that the legal issues – an Eighth

Amendment safety claim and a due process claim – are complex. Finally, plaintiff has

demonstrated an adequate ability to articulate his claims on his own. 

Plaintiff also seeks an order directing defendants to respond to his amended

complaint. By separate order issued herewith, the court has directed plaintiff to submit the

documents necessary for service of the amended complaint by the United States Marshal. Until

such time as plaintiff has complied and the amended complaint has been served, defendants are

under no obligation to respond. Plaintiff’s motion will, therefore, be denied as premature. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

2

Case 2:16-cv-00517-DMC Document 63 Filed 07/13/18 Page 2 of 3
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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 56) is

denied as unnecessary; 

2. Plaintiff’s motions for the appointment of counsel (Docs. 57 and 62) are

denied; and

3. Plaintiff’s motion for an order directing defendants to respond (Doc. 61) is

denied as premature. 

DATED: July 12, 2018

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 2:16-cv-00517-DMC Document 63 Filed 07/13/18 Page 3 of 3