Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00624/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00624-7/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 

DIRK JA’ONG BOUIE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

R. WILLOX, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:16-cv-0624 JAM AC 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). 

“When determining whether ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist, a court must consider ‘the 

likelihood of 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) (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). The burden 

of demonstrating exceptional circumstances is on the plaintiff. Id. Circumstances common to 

Case 2:16-cv-00624-JAM-AC Document 43 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 

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. 

Plaintiff requests counsel on the grounds that he cannot afford counsel, has been unable to 

find counsel willing to represent him, has been diagnosed as legally blind since 2016, has limited 

access to the law library, is a mental health participant, and that counsel would be better able to 

present his case at trial. ECF No. 41. The circumstances alleged by plaintiff are common to 

many prisoners and therefore do not demonstrate that exceptional circumstances warranting 

appointment of counsel exist. Furthermore, it has not yet been determined that this case will 

proceed to trial, so any request for appointment of counsel on that basis is premature. The court 

further notes that, to date, plaintiff has managed to successfully articulate his claims without the 

assistance of counsel, and on the current record, it is not clear that plaintiff is likely to succeed on 

the merits, particularly in light of the pending motion for summary judgment based on his alleged 

failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 

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

counsel, ECF No. 41, is denied. 

DATED: January 22, 2020 

Case 2:16-cv-00624-JAM-AC Document 43 Filed 01/22/20 Page 2 of 2