Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00853/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00853-3/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

SALADIN RUSHDAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. WIN, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-0853 KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, in an action brought under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court are plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel and 

motion to compel.

Motion for 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 to 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 

Case 2:14-cv-00853-KJN Document 40 Filed 11/14/14 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

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 

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

warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. 

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.

Motion to Compel

On October 22, 2014, the court granted plaintiff thirty days to return the forms necessary 

to effect service, including USM-285 forms containing defendants’ addresses for service.

In the pending motion to compel, plaintiff requests that the California Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) be directed to provide plaintiff with defendants’ 

addresses so that they may be served with process. Plaintiff alleges that he does not have 

defendants’ addresses. 

Defendants may be served at their place of employment. The complaint indicates that 

plaintiff has knowledge of where defendants are employed. For this reason, plaintiff’s motion to 

compel is denied. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 38) is denied without 

prejudice; and 

2. Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 39) is denied; plaintiff is granted thirty days to 

return the forms necessary for service of defendants. 

Dated: November 14, 2014

rush0853.31kjn

Case 2:14-cv-00853-KJN Document 40 Filed 11/14/14 Page 2 of 2