Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02052/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02052-6/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFF HEALY,

Plaintiff,

v.

SHAGUFTA YASMEEN, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:19-CV-2052-WBS-DMC-P

ORDER

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel. ECF No. 27. 

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 Terrell, the 

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concluded the district court did not abuse its 

Case 2:19-cv-02052-DMC Document 28 Filed 02/17/21 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

27

28

2

discretion with respect to appointment of counsel because: 

Terrell demonstrated sufficient writing ability and legal knowledge to 

articulate his claim. The facts he alleged and the issues he raised were not of 

substantial complexity. The compelling evidence against Terrell made it 

extremely unlikely that he would succeed on the merits. 

Id. at 1017. 

Plaintiff moves for appointment of counsel because he has limited knowledge of 

the law, limited education, and has no access to a prison law library due to COVID-19-related 

lockdowns. ECF No. 27 at 1–2. 4. He also contends that his case alleging deliberate indifference 

to his medical needs, for which he has requested a jury, is complex and will require investigation 

and preparation that he cannot undertake in prison, because expert witnesses will be necessary, 

and because the prison law library only offers computers and not books (and that he has limited 

computer literacy). Id. 1–2. Plaintiff also indicates that the Court should appoint counsel because 

he cannot afford an attorney, because Defendants will not admit to any misconduct, and because 

the Court has established the merits of his claims in ordering service of his complaint. See id.

Finally, Plaintiff asserts that he is physically disabled and cannot utilize the law library and other 

resources to prepare for court. Id. at 1–2, 4

The Court recognizes the unique difficulties of litigating from prison, especially 

considering COVID-19 lockdowns and Plaintiff’s apparent disabilities. There is no doubt that 

limitations on prisoners’ ability to investigate their case and prepare witnesses hinder seamless 

trial practice. The Court, however, does not find exceptional circumstances warranting a request 

by the Court for assistance of counsel. Plaintiff’s inability to investigate his case as easily as he 

would like because he is in prison is a circumstance attendant to his own incarceration and that of 

numerous other similarly situated prisoners. 

Plaintiff, moreover, has filed submissions with the Court that efficiently state his 

requested relief. His request for appointment of counsel includes citation to authority. Id. at 4. 

Review of the docket indicates that Plaintiff has been able to articulate his claims on his own. 

Moreover, Plaintiff alleges straightforward Eighth Amendment claims in his complaint. See ECF

No. 1. The factual and legal issues involved in this case are not unusually complex.

Case 2:19-cv-02052-DMC Document 28 Filed 02/17/21 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

27

28

3

Furthermore, although the Court ordered service of several of Plaintiff’s Eighth 

Amendment claims (ECF No. 15), discovery has not concluded. Defendants’ answer only denies 

or admits Plaintiff’s various allegations. ECF No. 23. The Court cannot say that Plaintiff has 

established a particular likelihood of success on the merits at the present stage of this case. For 

the purposes of this case, the Court concludes that its conclusion that some of Plaintiff’s claims 

were appropriate for service does not establish a sufficient likelihood of success warranting

appointment of counsel.

Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 27) is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 17, 2021

____________________________________

DENNIS M. COTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:19-cv-02052-DMC Document 28 Filed 02/17/21 Page 3 of 3