Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-02313/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-02313-3/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

DANTE RENEE BUDD,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. HARRISSON, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:23-cv-2313 KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se, in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. Plaintiff requests that the court appoint 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 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 abuse discretion in declining to appoint counsel). The 

burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances is on the plaintiff. Id. Circumstances

////

Case 2:23-cv-02313-KJM-CSK Document 14 Filed 11/30/23 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

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 failed to meet his 

burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel at this 

time.

Finally, on November 22, 2023, plaintiff filed another motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis. (ECF No. 11.) However, plaintiff was previously granted leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis. (ECF No. 8.) Therefore, plaintiff’s November 22, 2023 motion is denied as moot.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 12) is denied without 

prejudice; and

2. Plaintiff’s November 22, 2023 motion (ECF No. 11) is denied as moot.

Dated: November 30, 2023

/budd2313.31

Case 2:23-cv-02313-KJM-CSK Document 14 Filed 11/30/23 Page 2 of 2