Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02310/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02310-1/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

SIDNEY ROSS DEEGAN, III,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:19-CV-2310-WBS-DMC-P

ORDER

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel 

(ECF No. 9). 

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 

Case 2:19-cv-02310-WBS-DMC Document 10 Filed 01/22/20 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

Ninth Circuit concluded the district court did not abuse its 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. 

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

circumstances. Plaintiff states that appointment of counsel is warranted because he is indigent, 

the issues involved are complex, he has a limited knowledge of the law, and he is an inmate. See

ECF No. 9, pgs. 1-2. The court finds that these are not exceptional circumstances. To the 

contrary, the circumstances outlined by plaintiff are common to most prisoner litigants. Further, 

at this stage of the proceedings before the court has screened the complaint and before any 

discovery or substantive motions have been filed, the court cannot say that plaintiff has any 

likelihood of success on the merits. Additionally, plaintiff has thus far demonstrated an ability to 

articulate himself on his own. Finally, a cursory review of the complaint reflects that the issues 

presented – denial of medical treatment, denial of basic necessities, and retaliation – do not 

appear to be complex. 

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

appointment of counsel (ECF No. 9) is denied.

Dated: January 21, 2020

____________________________________

DENNIS M. COTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:19-cv-02310-WBS-DMC Document 10 Filed 01/22/20 Page 2 of 2