Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00055/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00055-4/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAGHVENDRA SINGH, also known as 

Raj Singh,

Plaintiff,

v.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:23-CV-0055-DMC-P

ORDER

Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s renewed motion for the appointment of 

counsel. See ECF No. 11. Plaintiff’s prior motion was denied on December 13, 2023. See ECF 

No. 10. 

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 

Case 2:23-cv-00055-DAD-DMC Document 12 Filed 03/08/24 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

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 Terrell, the 

Ninth Circuit concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion with respect to appointment 

of counsel because: 

. . . Terrell demonstrated sufficient writing ability and legal knowledge to 

articulate his claim. The facts he alleged and the issues he raised were not 

of substantial complexity. The compelling evidence against Terrell made it 

extremely unlikely that he would succeed on the merits. 

Id. at 1017. 

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

circumstances. As with the prior motion, Plaintiff’s current motion does not describe exceptional 

circumstances. Plaintiff has demonstrated sufficient ability to articulate his claims on his own. 

Further, at the current stage of the proceedings before an answer has been filed or any discovery 

conducted, Plaintiff has not shown any particular likelihood of success on the merits. Finally, the 

claims in this case are neither legally nor factually complex. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s renewed request for the 

appointment of counsel, ECF No. 11, is denied.

Dated: March 8, 2024

____________________________________

DENNIS M. COTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-00055-DAD-DMC Document 12 Filed 03/08/24 Page 2 of 2