Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01593/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01593-1/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 

27 

28 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MICHAEL HILL, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JEFF LEIKAUF, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:23-cv-1593 AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff has requested the appointment of counsel. ECF No. 8. In support of the request, 

plaintiff states that he is uncertain how court proceedings work. Id. at 1. He asks if he should 

send in documents – presumably in support of his case – now, or wait to send them in at a later 

date. He also states that because this is the first time he has been in custody, he has little legal 

knowledge of court proceedings. Id. 

 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 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). Neither 

plaintiff’s indigence, nor his lack of education, nor his lack of legal expertise warrant the 

appointment of counsel. See Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990); see 

Case 2:23-cv-01593-AC Document 9 Filed 08/25/23 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 

27 

28 

2 

also Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 1984) (finding court was within its 

discretion when it denied appointment of counsel to sixty-year-old appellant proceeding in forma 

pauperis with no background in law who thoroughly presented issues in petition). Therefore, the 

court does not find the required exceptional circumstances in this case, and plaintiff’s request for 

the appointment of counsel will be denied. 

Plaintiff is informed that the court will screen his complaint in due course in order to 

determine whether it may be served. At that time, if additional support for his complaint is 

needed, the screening order will say so. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for the appointment of 

counsel (ECF No. 8) is DENIED. 

DATED: August 24, 2023 

Case 2:23-cv-01593-AC Document 9 Filed 08/25/23 Page 2 of 2