Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02369/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02369-1/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

KRZYSZTOF WOLINSKI,

Plaintiff,

v.

GUSHARN GILL, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:19-cv-2369 WBS DB P

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action, has requested 

appointment of counsel. Plaintiff argues that this case has complex issues; he suffered a 

traumatic brain injury in 2016 which resulted in memory, concentration and other problems; and 

he has very limited English language ability. 

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require 

counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 

U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the district court may request the 

voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 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). 

The test for exceptional circumstances requires the court to evaluate the plaintiff’s 

likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in 

light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 

1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Circumstances 

Case 2:19-cv-02369-WBS-DB Document 10 Filed 02/06/20 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 would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of 

counsel. Currently, plaintiff is required to respond to the court’s January 6, 2020 order. Plaintiff 

need only provide the court with the following information: (1) the conviction and sentence he is 

currently serving; and (2) the loss of credits he incurred as a result of the rules violation 

conviction that is the subject of his complaint. These are not complex legal issues that require the 

assistance of counsel. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of 

counsel (ECF No. 9) is denied without prejudice to its renewal at a later date.

Dated: February 6, 2020

DLB:9

DB/prisoner-civil rights/woli2369.31

Case 2:19-cv-02369-WBS-DB Document 10 Filed 02/06/20 Page 2 of 2