Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01540/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01540-48/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHANNON WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:16-cv-01540-DAD-HBK (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Doc. No. 188)

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel filed on December 2, 

2024. (Doc. No. 188). Plaintiff, a federal prisoner, proceeds in forma pauperis solely on his 

battery claim seeking monetary damages under the Federal Tort Claims ACT (“FTCA”) 

contained in his amended complaint. (Doc. Nos. 1, 99, 146, 161).1 A settlement conference and 

bench trial are scheduled in this case for December 20, 2024 and February 3, 2025, respectively. 

(Doc. Nos. 194, 179). Plaintiff had previously been appointed counsel, and the Court granted pro 

bono counsel’s motion to withdraw on April 24, 2024 based on Plaintiff’s express intent that he 

wished to discharge his attorney. (Doc. Nos. 70, 164). The district court denied Plaintiff’s 

motion for reconsideration of the April 24, 2024 order discharging counsel. (Doc. No. 170). 

Plaintiff requests the Court to reappoint him counsel because his institution is 

1 Plaintiff’s Eight Amendment claim brought pursuant to Bivens was dismissed due to the Supreme 

Court’s opinion in Egbert, and Ninth Circuit’s opinions in Harper and Chambers. (Doc. Nos. 146, 161). 

Case 1:16-cv-01540-DAD-HBK Document 196 Filed 12/16/24 Page 1 of 3
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

“continuously and currently on institution[al] lockdown.” (Doc. No. 188 at 1). Plaintiff states 

that the lockdowns result in no access to phone or e-mail, and he is without access to the law 

library to research and timely comply with the Court’s orders and deadlines. (Id. at 2). Plaintiff

also argues that the Protective Order concerning the location of cameras at U.S.P. Atwater, where 

the incident giving rise to his claim occurred, is unwarranted “as the cameras are not hidden from 

inmates and it is common knowledge that inmates” at USP Atwater are under 24-hour 

surveillance. (Id. at 3).

The United States Constitution does not require appointment of counsel in civil cases. See

Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354 (1996) (explaining Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. at 817, did not 

create a right to appointment of counsel in civil cases). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, this court has 

discretionary authority to appoint counsel for an indigent to commence, prosecute, or defend a 

civil action but only in “exceptional circumstances.” Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F. 2d 1328, 

1331 (9th Cir. 1986). The court may consider many factors to determine if exceptional 

circumstances warrant appointment of counsel including, but not limited to, proof of indigence, 

the likelihood of success on the merits, and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his or her 

claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 

1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds on reh’g en banc, 154 F.2d 952 

(9th Cir. 1998). 

Plaintiff has not met his “burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances to warrant 

reappointment of counsel at this later stage of the case. The issues involved in this case are not 

complex. Plaintiff had capably filed his complaint, numerous motions, and successfully defended 

against a motion for summary judgment prior to counsel’s appointment.

2 Additionally, Plaintiff

presented his administrative claim to the appropriate federal agency before filing a civil action 

as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). Thus, the Court continues to find that Plaintiff has 

demonstrated an ability—and, in fact, is capable—of articulating his claims pro se. Appointed 

2 Counsel was initially appointed for the limited purpose of briefing whether Plaintiff’s remaining Eighth 

Amendment allegation in his complaint stated a claim upon which relief may be granted considering

Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843, 1854 (2017). (Doc. No. 70).

Case 1:16-cv-01540-DAD-HBK Document 196 Filed 12/16/24 Page 2 of 3
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

3

counsel at this late stage of the case would lack the depth of familiarity with the facts of this case. 

To the extent that institutional lockdowns are impeding Plaintiff’s ability to comply with the 

court’s deadlines, Plaintiff may seek an extension of time. Thus, the Court does not find 

reappointment of counsel warranted in this case. Plaintiff, however, may raise any concerns he 

has with litigating this case pro se at the pretrial conference currently scheduled for January 14, 

2025.

As to Plaintiff’s claims regarding a protective order over the location of surveillance 

cameras at USP-Atwater, it is not clear what relief, if any, Plaintiff seeks. Discovery closed more 

than a year ago on May 15, 2023. (See Doc. No. 132). On March 3, 2023, the Court held a 

discovery dispute hearing concerning all outstanding discovery issues and any issues with 

discovery were resolved at that time. (See Doc. No. 131). Further, the surveillance video (Doc. 

No. 45-2) was previously reviewed in connection with Defendant’s motion for summary 

judgment and discussed at length by the previous magistrate judge in his February 26, 2019,

Findings and Recommendations to deny Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 59 

at 8-9). Moreover, the Protective Order does not prohibit the introduction of the surveillance 

video at trial. (See Doc. No. 127 at 1-2) (noting that Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle 

parties to file confidential information under seal). 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. No. 188) is DENIED.

Dated: December 16, 2024 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01540-DAD-HBK Document 196 Filed 12/16/24 Page 3 of 3