Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00510/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00510-17/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 

CARLOS MANWELL DAWSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JEFF LYNCH, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:21-cv-0510 KJM AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed another motion for appointment of 

counsel. ECF No. 56. 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 2:21-cv-00510-DC-AC Document 57 Filed 07/31/24 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. 

In denying plaintiff’s previous request, the court the court advised plaintiff that if he was 

requesting appointment of counsel based upon his health conditions, the fact that he suffered from 

those conditions was not sufficient to establish exceptional circumstances and he would have to 

identify the conditions he suffered from, explain how they prevented him from proceeding 

without counsel, and provide medical documentation to support his claimed impairments. ECF 

No. 55 at 2. Plaintiff has now filed a request for counsel that alleges that he suffers from chronic 

sarcoidosis, glaucoma, cataracts, diabetes, leukopenia, neutropenia, asthma, and a variety of other 

health conditions. ECF No. 56 at 1-4. He attaches various medical records to support his motion. 

Id. at 4-61. 

Review of the medical records provided verifies that plaintiff suffers from a variety of 

medical conditions. Id. However, the records do not support plaintiff’s contention that he is 

unable to proceed without the assistance of counsel and many of the records are merely 

informational printouts related to plaintiff’s conditions rather than assessments of plaintiff’s 

actual condition. The court further finds that plaintiff has thus far demonstrated he is capable of 

proceeding without counsel’s assistance. Based on these factors, plaintiff has not shown the 

existence of extraordinary circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel. 

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

counsel (ECF No. 56) is DENIED. 

DATED: July 30, 2024 

Case 2:21-cv-00510-DC-AC Document 57 Filed 07/31/24 Page 2 of 2