Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00369/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00369-5/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 

RODNEY V. COLEMAN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

M.E. SPEARMAN, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:19-cv-0369 AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action, has requested 

appointment of counsel. ECF No. 30. In support of his request, plaintiff states in part that he is 

incarcerated; that he has health issues that make it difficult for him to respond to the court’s 

orders at times; that his case may require complex investigation; and that he has limited access to 

the prison law library. Id. 

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, 

Case 2:19-cv-00369-DC-AC Document 33 Filed 04/18/22 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 

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. 

The court notes that plaintiff has adequately managed this matter to date. The complaint 

presents one viable claim against one defendant. Additionally, plaintiff fails to state with any 

specificity what investigation is necessary and why it will be complicated. Finally, to the extent 

plaintiff currently has limited access to the prison law library, this is a relatively common 

occurrence that does not warrant the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff may seek the extension of 

any deadlines that he has difficulty meeting. For these reasons, the court does not find the 

required exceptional circumstances. 

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

counsel (ECF No. 30) is DENIED. 

DATED: April 18, 2022 

Case 2:19-cv-00369-DC-AC Document 33 Filed 04/18/22 Page 2 of 2