Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-02072/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-02072-6/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 

MORIANO MILLARE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

M. STARR, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:20-cv-2072 KJM AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff has requested the appointment of counsel. ECF No. 26. In support of the 

motion, plaintiff states in part that he suffers from a number of physical disabilities and 

conditions that cause severe pain; that the pain in his arms and hands increase when writing; that 

his request for a laptop or word processor is not likely to be granted; that his access to the prison 

law library and to legal materials is limited; and that he cannot afford to hire an attorney. Id. at 1-

4. 

 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 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). 

//// 

Case 2:20-cv-02072-DAD-AC Document 27 Filed 07/21/22 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 

 On July 6, 2022, proceedings in this matter were stayed for 120 days pending settlement 

negotiations, and the thirty-day period within which the parties may opt out of the ADR Project 

Program is still open. See generally ECF No. 25. Because it is unclear whether the case will 

proceed to litigation, the motion is premature. Moreover, plaintiff has thus far submitted 

documents that are clearly written and well-reasoned (see ECF Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9, 15), suggesting 

that his physical ailments have not sufficiently impacted his ability to manage this matter that the 

appointment of counsel is warranted. See, e.g., Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F. 3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 

2009) (finding district court’s determination that plaintiff had done “quite a good job” of putting 

on case established that it had not abused discretion by denying appointment of counsel). Finally, 

plaintiff’s inability to afford counsel is not an extraordinary circumstance. 

 For these reasons, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances at this 

time. See Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 1984) (finding court was within its 

discretion when it denied appointment of counsel to sixty-year-old appellant proceeding in forma 

pauperis with no background in law who thoroughly presented issues in petition). Plaintiff’s 

request for the appointment of counsel will therefore be denied. 

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

counsel (ECF No. 26) is DENIED. 

DATED: July 21, 2022 

Case 2:20-cv-02072-DAD-AC Document 27 Filed 07/21/22 Page 2 of 2