Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00431/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00431-6/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 

27 

28 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MASA NATHANIAL WARDEN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

B. COWAN, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:19-cv-00431-MCE-AC 

ORDER 

 The court is in receipt of plaintiff’s second motion to appoint counsel. ECF No. 36. 

Plaintiff is incarcerated, and is bringing his civil case as a self-represented litigant proceeding in 

forma pauperis. ECF No. 10. 

Plaintiff requests that the court appoint counsel, asserting his case is complex, and he 

needs extra time to answer discovery. ECF No. 36. Plaintiff indicates that defendants have 

served him with interrogatories, but does not indicate when his responses are due. Id. 

In civil cases, a pro se litigant’s right to counsel “is a privilege and not a right.” United 

States ex Rel. Gardner v. Madden, 352 F.2d 792, 793 (9th Cir. 1965) (citation omitted). 

“Appointment of counsel should be allowed only in exceptional cases.” Id. When determining 

whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the 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). 

Case 2:19-cv-00431-TLN-AC Document 37 Filed 02/05/20 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 

The undersigned already found once that there are no exceptional circumstances in this 

case, and that appointment of counsel is not warranted. ECF No. 30. Plaitniff presents no 

additional information that alters the court’s decision. Nor does plaintiff give the court enough 

information regarding his deadlines for discovery responses to allow the court to extend any of 

his response deadlines. 

Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (ECF No. 36) is DENIED. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: February 4, 2020 

Case 2:19-cv-00431-TLN-AC Document 37 Filed 02/05/20 Page 2 of 2