Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02552/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02552-15/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELADIO RODRIGUEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

G. KNIGHT, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:19-cv-2552 DB P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges defendants used excessive force and denied him due process in 

violation of his rights under the Eight and Fourteenth Amendments. Presently before the court is 

plaintiff’s second motion to appoint counsel. (ECF No. 70.)

I. Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel

In support of his motion, plaintiff argues the court should appoint counsel because he 

cannot afford counsel and defendants are refusing to produce discovery materials based on his 

status as an inmate proceeding pro se. (ECF No. 70.) By order dated March 28, 2022, the 

undersigned granted in part and denied in part plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 50). (ECF 

No. 61.) Defendants moved for reconsideration arguing against disclosure of certain documents 

based in part on plaintiff’s status as a pro se inmate. Plaintiff feels that appointment of counsel 

////

Case 2:19-cv-02552-DJC-DB Document 77 Filed 07/11/22 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

would alleviate the concerns defendants have regarding the release of confidential information to 

a pro se inmate.

II. Legal Standard

The 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.2nd 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 legal issues involved. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 798 F.2d 1328, 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.

III. Analysis

In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. 

Plaintiff has cited circumstances that are common to most inmates in support of his motion.

Plaintiff’s difficulty with discovery shared by all incarcerated litigants proceeding pro se and does 

not rise to the level of exceptional circumstances. Fierro v. Smith, No. 19-16786, 2022 WL 

2437526, at *2 (9th Cir. 2022) (noting that the difficulties pro se prisoner face in navigating 

discovery is not by itself sufficient for appointment of counsel); see also Choquette v. Warner, 

No. 3:15-cv-05838-BHS-JRC, 2016 WL 11622951, at *1 (W.D. Wash. 2016) (finding that desire 

for assistance with discovery is not an exceptional circumstance). 

Plaintiff has shown he is able to able to articulate his claims considering the complexity of 

the legal issues involved. For example, plaintiff has filed a motion to compel, extensively citing 

relevant legal authority and has properly responded to defendant’s motions. (See ECF Nos. 50, 

56.)

////

Case 2:19-cv-02552-DJC-DB Document 77 Filed 07/11/22 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

Additionally, at this stage of the proceedings, the court cannot evaluate plaintiff’s 

likelihood of success on the merits. It would be premature, as defendant’s motion for summary 

judgment has not yet been fully briefed. (ECF No. 73.) 

Therefore, the court finds that plaintiff has failed to satisfy the rigorous standards required 

for appointment of counsel. The undersigned will deny the motion to appoint counsel without 

prejudice to its renewal at a later stage of the proceedings.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for the 

appointment of counsel (ECF No. 70) is denied.

Dated: July 8, 2022

DB:Ext

DB/DB Prisoner Inbox/Civil Rights/R/rodr2552.31

Case 2:19-cv-02552-DJC-DB Document 77 Filed 07/11/22 Page 3 of 3