Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00264/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00264-14/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 

JOHN MCCLINTOCK, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

COLOSIMO et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-0264 TLN AC (TEMP) P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action, has requested 

appointment of counsel. 

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). 

The test for exceptional circumstances requires the court to evaluate the plaintiff's 

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

light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 

1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). When determining 

whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court must consider plaintiff's likelihood of 

Case 2:13-cv-00264-TLN-DB Document 75 Filed 04/08/16 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

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). 

The burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances is on the plaintiff. Id. Circumstances 

common to most prisoners do not establish exceptional circumstances. 

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

Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims are not particularly complex, and plaintiff has thus far been 

able to articulate his claims pro se. Plaintiff’s limited legal knowledge and potential discovery 

disputes with defendants are circumstances common to most prisoners that do not warrant 

appointment of counsel. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for appointment of 

counsel (ECF No. 73) is denied without prejudice. 

DATED: April 8, 2016 

Case 2:13-cv-00264-TLN-DB Document 75 Filed 04/08/16 Page 2 of 2