Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-02167/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-02167-6/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 

CURTIS SNOWDEN, III, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

M. YULE, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:17-cv-2167 TLN AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights 

action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently pending is plaintiff’s request for 

appointment of counsel. For the reasons set forth below, plaintiff’s request will be denied without 

prejudice. 

 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 

Case 2:17-cv-02167-DJC-AC Document 56 Filed 03/13/20 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 

Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Circumstances common to 

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

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

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

 This is plaintiff’s fifth request for appointment of counsel. ECF No. 55; see also ECF No. 

26 at 8-9 (denying prior requests). As set forth in the screening order, the allegations that 

plaintiff’s apparent tendon rupture went undiagnosed and inadequately treated by defendants for a 

period of two months, causing plaintiff both physical and mental injuries, indicate that this case 

may have merit. See ECF No. 26. However, many of the grounds upon which plaintiff requests 

appointment – unable to afford retained counsel, imprisonment and institutional transfers, and 

limited access to the prison law library – are matters common to most prisoners and therefore do 

not present the requisite “exceptional circumstances” warranting appointment of voluntary 

counsel. 

 At his juncture, defendants only recently appeared in this action and did so by filing a 

motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for more definite statement. ECF No. 48. Plaintiff sought 

and obtained three extensions of time within which to respond to defendants’ motion, ECF Nos. 

49-54, but has not yet done so. The undersigned will soon be issuing findings and 

recommendations on defendants’ motion. This litigation remains at an early stage, and the court 

finds that appointment of counsel is not warranted at this stage of the proceeding. 

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

counsel, ECF No. 55, is denied without prejudice. 

DATED: March 13, 2020 

Case 2:17-cv-02167-DJC-AC Document 56 Filed 03/13/20 Page 2 of 2