Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-02678/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-02678-10/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 

ANTHONY RAUL BARRON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

A. ALCARAZ, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:11-cv-2678 JAM AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action, has filed a motion for 

appointment of counsel. Plaintiff states that he is indigent, has limited knowledge of the law and 

limited law library access, due in part to his placement in administrative segregation, and that 

counsel would be better able to investigate and prepare his case, conduct discovery and proceed at 

trial. See ECF No. 75. Plaintiff notes that, because his Third Amended Complaint (TAC) 

survived defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s retaliation claim against 

defendant Whitfield, see ECF Nos. 69, 72, the court has already determined that this case has 

merit. Plaintiff contends that his surviving claim is factually and legally complex. He also 

asserts fears of further retaliation for proceeding on his own in this litigation. 

 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 a plaintiff. See 28 

Case 2:11-cv-02678-JAM-AC Document 76 Filed 07/27/15 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

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). 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 warranting appointment of counsel. 

In the instant case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances at the 

present time. Most of plaintiff’s reasons for requesting appointment of counsel reflect 

circumstances common to most prisoners, particularly those housed in administrative segregation. 

The instant action has been significantly narrowed by the court’s orders on defendants’ motion 

for summary judgment. Plaintiff’s responsibility now is to pursue discovery in support of his 

claim that defendant “Whitfield, acting in retaliation against plaintiff for exercising his right to 

remain silent, issued a false Form 128-B that served as a source item in support of plaintiff’s gang 

validation,” viz., “that defendant Whitfield retaliated against plaintiff in violation of the First 

Amendment for the exercise of plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination,” 

when plaintiff refused to have his tattoos photographed. See Findings and Recommendations, 

ECF No. 69 at 23-4 (citations, internal quotation marks and punctuation omitted). Review of 

plaintiff’s TAC, ECF No. 32, and opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment, ECF 

No. 67, demonstrate that plaintiff is fully capable of formulating and requesting relevant 

discovery in this action, particularly in light of the narrowed facts and legal claim that now 

proceeds herein.1

 

//// 

//// 

 

1

 Plaintiff’s discovery requests may include the following: (1) requests for admission (yes-or-no 

statements of fact), see Fed. R. Civ. P. 36; (2) up to twenty-five interrogatories (questions), see 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 33; and (3) requests for copies of documents, electronically stored information, or 

other tangible evidence, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. 

Case 2:11-cv-02678-JAM-AC Document 76 Filed 07/27/15 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

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s July 8, 2015 motion for 

appointment of counsel, ECF No. 75, is denied without prejudice. 

DATED: July 27, 2015. 

______________/S/__________________ 

 ALLISON CLAIRE 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:11-cv-02678-JAM-AC Document 76 Filed 07/27/15 Page 3 of 3