Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01155/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01155-3/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARCELINO CALDERON-SILVA,

Plaintiff, No. 2:11-cv-1155 EFB P

vs.

M.S. EVANS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42

U.S.C. § 1983. He requests that the court appoint counsel and that his deposition, noticed for

May 14, 2013, be postponed until the court rules on his request for counsel. 

District courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in

section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In

exceptional circumstances, the court may request an attorney to voluntarily to represent such a

plaintiff. See 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, the 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). 

////

1

Case 2:11-cv-01155-GEB-EFB Document 31 Filed 05/10/13 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

Having considered those factors, the court finds there are no exceptional circumstances in this

case. 

Plaintiff’s request to postpone his deposition must also be denied. See Dckt. No. 28

(stating “plaintiff is afraid because he may might be asked to say anything which could be later

used against him”).1 Defendants have a right to defend against plaintiff’s allegations in this

lawsuit. Under Rule 30 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and pursuant to this court’s

scheduling order, defendants are entitled to take plaintiff’s deposition. See Dckt. No. 19 at 1. 

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

counsel and to postpone his deposition, Dckt. Nos. 28, 29, are denied. IT IS FURTHER

ORDERED that defendants make available a copy of this order for plaintiff’s review at the

upcoming deposition. 

DATED: May 10, 2013.

1

 Plaintiff also indicates he may need a Spanish language interpreter for the deposition. 

Plaintiff’s concern appears to be moot, as defendants indicate that a Spanish-language interpreter

will be present at plaintiff’s deposition. Dckt. No. 30-1, Bajwa Decl. ¶ 3. 

2

Case 2:11-cv-01155-GEB-EFB Document 31 Filed 05/10/13 Page 2 of 2