Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02403/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02403-2/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 

RICHARD EARL GEORGE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ZUNIGA, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:19-cv-2403 KJM AC P 

ORDER 

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

appointment of counsel. 

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 2:19-cv-02403-KJM-AC Document 15 Filed 02/13/20 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 asserts that he requires counsel because his case is complex, he is untrained in the 

law, he takes large doses of psychotropic medication for is psychosis, and counsel would be better 

able to present his case at trial. ECF No. 14. These reasons fail to demonstrate extraordinary 

circumstances exist, and to the extent plaintiff appears to assert he suffers from a mental health 

condition that impairs his ability to represent himself, he has not explained how his condition 

prevents him proceeding without counsel. Additionally, plaintiff’s claim that he requires counsel 

at trial is premature, as it has not yet been determined whether this case will proceed to trial. 

Finally, the court has yet to screen the complaint, and will not do so until plaintiff’s fee status has 

been resolved, so it is currently unclear whether plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. 

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

counsel (ECF No. 14) is denied. 

DATED: February 13, 2020 

Case 2:19-cv-02403-KJM-AC Document 15 Filed 02/13/20 Page 2 of 2