Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01810/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01810-3/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 

MERVIN S. DUNFORD, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JEFFREY A. BEARD, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-1810 AC P 

ORDER 

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

appointment of counsel. ECF No. 10. 

 It appears that this motion may have been filed in the wrong court, as the caption is for the 

Solano County Superior Court and the motion bears a state court case number. Id. at 1. If 

plaintiff intended to file his motion for appointment of counsel with the state court, he will need 

to resubmit the motion to that court. In the event that plaintiff intended to file the motion in this 

case, the court will address it. However, plaintiff is advised that any future motions filed in this 

case must have the name of this court, “United States District Court for the Eastern District of 

California,” and the number for this case, 2:15-cv-1810 AC, on the first page. Failure to provide 

the proper court and case number information on the first page of any future motions may result 

in the motions being disregarded and returned to plaintiff as misfiled. 

With respect to plaintiff’s request for counsel, the United States Supreme Court has ruled 

Case 2:15-cv-01810-JAM-AC Document 11 Filed 05/25/16 Page 1 of 3
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

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 

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 recently screened the complaint and dismissed it with leave to amend. ECF No. 

5. In screening the complaint, the court outlined the applicable legal standards for plaintiff and 

explained to him what he would have to show in order to state a claim. Id. Since it does not 

appear that plaintiff had received the screening order at the time he submitted the motion for 

appointment of counsel, he likely has not yet attempted to follow the court’s instructions for 

amending the complaint. At this stage the court is therefore unable to evaluate plaintiff’s 

likelihood of success on the merits or his ability to articulate his claims. For these reasons, the 

court is unable to find the necessary exceptional circumstances at this time and finds that 

appointment of counsel would be premature at this stage of the case. 

Summary 

Plaintiff needs to make sure that he is sending his motions to the right court and that when 

he files documents in this case the documents must have the name of this court and this case 

number on the first page. 

The motion for appointment of counsel is denied because it is too early in the case for the 

court to find that exceptional circumstances exist. 

//// 

Case 2:15-cv-01810-JAM-AC Document 11 Filed 05/25/16 Page 2 of 3
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 

3

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

counsel (ECF No. 10) is denied without prejudice. 

DATED: May 24, 2016 

Case 2:15-cv-01810-JAM-AC Document 11 Filed 05/25/16 Page 3 of 3