Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02295/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02295-6/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID BENNETT, No. 2:13-CV-2295-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

BUTTE COUNTY POLICE

DEPARTMENT,

Defendant.

 /

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 18) for an extension of

time and for appointment of counsel. 

Plaintiff seeks an extension of time to respond to the court’s February 24, 2016,

order to show cause. Good cause appearing therefor, plaintiff’s request for an extension of time

will be granted. Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to file a response within the time provided in

this order may result in dismissal of the action. See Local Rule 110. 

/ / /

/ / /

1

Case 2:13-cv-02295-CMK Document 19 Filed 06/29/16 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

Plaintiff seeks the 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. See Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain

exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v.

Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). A finding of “exceptional

circumstances” requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits and the

ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims on his own in light of the complexity of the legal

issues involved. See Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017. Neither factor is dispositive and both must be

viewed together before reaching a decision. See id. 

In the present case, the court does not at this time find the required exceptional

circumstances. For the reasons outlined on the court’s February 24, 2016, order, the court

concludes that plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to state a claim for relief against the only

named defendant, the Butte County Police Department. Additionally, the record reflects that

plaintiff is able to articulate himself on his own. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time (Doc. 18) to file a response to

the court’s February 24, 2016, order to show cause is granted; 

2. Plaintiff’s response is due within 30 days of the date of this order; and

3. Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel (Doc. 18) is denied.

DATED: June 28, 2016

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 2:13-cv-02295-CMK Document 19 Filed 06/29/16 Page 2 of 2