Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-02015/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-02015-8/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MELVIN PARKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

WARDEN JEFF LYNCH, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:22-cv-2015 KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se and without counsel. On March 28, 2023, 

the undersigned issued an order denying plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel. On April 

10, 2023, plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration of that order. 

Local Rule 230(j) identifies material facts and circumstances litigants should address in 

seeking reconsideration: 

(1) when and to what Judge . . .the prior motion was made;

(2) what ruling, decision, or order was made thereon;

(3) what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist 

which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or 

what other grounds exist for the motion; and

(4) why the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of the

prior motion.

E.D. L.R. 230(j).

Case 2:22-cv-02015-CSK Document 31 Filed 04/25/23 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

Plaintiff claims that he faces circumstances similar to other litigants: i.e., he must “serve 

process” on defendants who prevent plaintiff from accessing the law library and delay his 

outgoing mail to the court. Plaintiff contends he meets all the factors under Montgomery v. 

Pinchak, 294 F.3d 492, 499 (3d Cir. 2002). Plaintiff believes the court must consider his 

education level and “competency to law,” citing Farmer v. Haas, 990 F.2d 319, 322 (7th Cir. 

1993), before denying appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 25 at 1.) Plaintiff claims that district 

judges have appointed counsel for prisoners who meet the factors under Montgomery. (Id.) He 

reiterates his contention that his imprisonment greatly limits his ability to access the courts. (ECF 

No. 25 at 2; see also ECF No. 10 at 2.)

Generally, a person has no right to counsel in civil actions. See

Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981). 

However, a court may under “exceptional circumstances” appoint 

counsel for indigent civil litigants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(1). Agyeman v. Corrs. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 

(9th Cir.2004), cert. denied sub nom. Gerber v. Agyeman, 545 U.S. 

1128, 125 S. Ct. 2941, 162 L.Ed.2d 867 (2005).

Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009).

This court is part of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and therefore cases from 

the Third and Seventh Circuits are not binding on this court. In the Ninth Circuit, as plaintiff was 

previously informed, courts may request the voluntary assistance of counsel under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(1), but only in certain exceptional circumstances. 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). Obviously, the ability to 

litigate is impaired by imprisonment, which is common to all prisoners. But circumstances 

common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not 

establish exceptional circumstances that warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. 

Moreover, the records of this case demonstrate that plaintiff is able to articulate his claims. 

Indeed, plaintiff has filed multiple motions, including some that cite various legal authorities,

Case 2:22-cv-02015-CSK Document 31 Filed 04/25/23 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

which belies his claim that his court access is unduly limited. (ECF Nos. 10, 11, 13, 16, 19, 21, 

22, 25.)1 

As for service of process, this court has developed a pilot project that expedites service of 

process on behalf of incarcerated individuals; plaintiff is not required to serve process on any 

defendant. In fact, by separate order, the undersigned directed the U.S. Marshal to serve 

defendant N. West. Finally, plaintiff provided no additional facts that demonstrate his case 

presents exceptional circumstances. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s April 10, 2023, request for reconsideration (ECF No. 25) is granted; and

2. Upon reconsideration, plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel is denied.

Dated: April 25, 2023

//park2015.230j

1

 Plaintiff is cautioned that a litigant proceeding in forma pauperis may suffer restricted access to 

the court where it is determined he has filed excessive motions in a pending action. DeLong v. 

Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144 (9th Cir. 1990); see also Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F.2d 351, 352 (10th 

Cir. 1989). This is particularly true for repetitive motions seeking the same relief the court 

previously denied. In addition, the Eastern District of California maintains one of the heaviest 

caseloads in the nation, a significant portion of which is comprised of pro se inmate cases. This 

sometimes causes unavoidable delays in the resolution of individual matters, and plaintiff’s 

continued filing of duplicative motions does nothing but further slow the court’s ability to address 

his case. Plaintiff is cautioned that he may be subject to restricted court access if plaintiff does 

not exercise some restraint going forward.

Case 2:22-cv-02015-CSK Document 31 Filed 04/25/23 Page 3 of 3