Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01436/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01436-3/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 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MICHAEL BAZLEY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SCOTT R. JONES, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-1436 AC P 

ORDER 

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

appointment of counsel. ECF No. 13. 

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 2:15-cv-01436-AC Document 14 Filed 05/23/16 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 argues that he has established that he is likely to succeed on the merits because 

his complaint has survived screening. ECF No. 13 at 2. However, in screening the complaint, the 

court found only that plaintiff has stated a cognizable claim. ECF No. 8. It made no 

determination regarding plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits. Id. At this early stage of 

the case, the court is unable to assess plaintiff’s likelihood of success on his claims. As for the 

second prong of the test, plaintiff has thus far successfully managed to articulate his claims, given 

his demonstrated ability to allege facts that the court recognized as stating a claim. For these 

reasons, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances exist at this time. 

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

counsel (ECF No. 13) is denied without prejudice. 

DATED: May 20, 2016 

Case 2:15-cv-01436-AC Document 14 Filed 05/23/16 Page 2 of 2