Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00830/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00830-29/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

GRADY HARRIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEFF MACOMBER, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:16-cv-0830 TLN DB P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. Presently before the court is plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel. (ECF No. 

134.) 

In support of his motion to appoint counsel plaintiff argues that his imprisonment limits 

his ability to litigate, the issues are complex, he has limited access to the law library, he failed to 

effectively participate in the discovery process, trial will involve conflicting testimony, and he has 

tried to obtain a lawyer. (Id. at 1-2.) 

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). 

Case 2:16-cv-00830-TLN-SCR Document 146 Filed 10/05/22 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

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). 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. In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances.

While the court is sympathetic to the inherent difficulties in litigating a case while 

incarcerated, the arguments raised in support of plaintiff’s motion are largely circumstances 

common to most inmates. Throughout this litigation plaintiff has shown he is able to articulate 

his claims pro se in light of the complexity involved. Therefore, the undersigned will deny the 

motion to appoint counsel without prejudice.

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

counsel (ECF No. 134) is denied without prejudice.

Dated: October 4, 2022

DB:12

DB/DB Prisoner Inbox/Civil Rights/R/harr0830.31(3)

Case 2:16-cv-00830-TLN-SCR Document 146 Filed 10/05/22 Page 2 of 2