Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-02659/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-02659-34/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

TIMOTHY O’KEEFE,

Plaintiff,

v.

JERRY BROWN, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:11-cv-2659 KJM KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se, in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s third motion for the appointment of counsel. 

District courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 

1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional 

circumstances, the court may request an attorney to voluntarily represent such a plaintiff. See 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, the court must consider plaintiff’s 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) (district court did not 

abuse discretion in declining to appoint counsel). The burden of demonstrating exceptional 

circumstances is on the plaintiff. Id. Circumstances common to most prisoners, such as lack of 

Case 2:11-cv-02659-KJM-KJN Document 213 Filed 05/29/15 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

27

28

2

legal education and limited law library access, do not establish exceptional circumstances that 

warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. 

In the pending motion, plaintiff states that he recently received the court’s discovery 

order. Plaintiff states that he has no idea how to proceed with discovery. Plaintiff also states that 

he has mental health issues. 

Having considered the factors under Palmer, the court finds that plaintiff has failed to 

meet his burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of 

counsel at this time. Plaintiff has competently represented himself in this action. Plaintiff may 

consult the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure regarding discovery practice. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s May 21, 2015 motion for the 

appointment of counsel (ECF No. 210) is denied without prejudice.

Dated: May 29, 2015

okee2659.31.kjn

Case 2:11-cv-02659-KJM-KJN Document 213 Filed 05/29/15 Page 2 of 2