Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00365/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00365-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEITH D. JOHNSON, No. 2:15-CV-0365-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

MULE CREEK STATE PRISON, 

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

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

(Doc. 5). 

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

1

Case 2:15-cv-00365-CMK Document 14 Filed 09/28/15 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

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

circumstances. For the reasons discussed in the accompanying order addressing plaintiff’s

complaint, the court cannot say at this time that plaintiff has any particular likelihood of success

on the merits of his claims. Moreover, because it is unclear exactly what plaintiff’s claims are,

the court cannot evaluate plaintiff’s ability to articulate his position in light of the complexity of

his claims. 

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

appointment of counsel (Doc. 5) is denied.

DATED: September 28, 2015

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 2:15-cv-00365-CMK Document 14 Filed 09/28/15 Page 2 of 2