Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00822/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00822-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDREW WALTERS, No. 2:15-CV-0822-KJM-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

DAVID A. MASON, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court are plaintiff’s: (1) motions for the appointment of

counsel (Docs. 4 and 7); (2) motion for clarification (Doc. 8); (3) motion for leave to proceed in

forma paupeirs (Doc. 11); and (4) motion for leave to amend (Doc. 14). 

Plaintiff seeks the appointment of counsel. The United States Supreme Court has

ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in

§ 1983 cases. See 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). See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v.

Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). A finding of “exceptional

1

Case 2:15-cv-00822-KJM-CMK Document 20 Filed 03/10/16 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

circumstances” requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits and the

ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims on his own in light of the complexity of the legal

issues involved. See Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017. Neither factor is dispositive and both must be

viewed together before reaching a decision. See id. 

In the present case, the court does not at this time find the required exceptional

circumstances. First, plaintiff has demonstrated an ability to articulate his claims, which are not

legally complex. Second, for the reasons discussed in the findings and recommendations issued

herewith, the court finds that plaintiff does not have a likelihood of success on the merits of his

claim, which is not cognizable. 

In his motion for clarification, plaintiff seeks clarification of the court’s actions in

Walters v. Mason, et al., 2:15-CV-0824-MCE-KJN, which was closed on June 2, 2015, as

duplicative of the instant action. Specifically, plaintiff is under the belief that the instant action

was to be closed and the other action was to remain active. To the extent this mistaken belief is

hereby clarified, plaintiff’s motion for clarification will be granted. 

Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff has submitted the

affidavit required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) showing that plaintiff is unable to prepay fees and costs

or give security therefor. Plaintiff’s motion will be granted. 

Finally, plaintiff seeks leave to amend. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 15(a)(1), a party may amend his pleading once as a matter of right at any time before

being served with a responsive pleading. A review of the docket reflects that no responsive

pleading has been served. Therefore, plaintiff’s motion is denied as unnecessary. In any event,

for the reasons discussed in the accompanying findings and recommendations, amendment would

be futile. See DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987). 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

2

Case 2:15-cv-00822-KJM-CMK Document 20 Filed 03/10/16 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motions for the appointment of counsel (Docs. 4 and 7) are

denied. 

2. Plaintiff’s motion for clarification (Doc. 8) is granted; 

3. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 11) is

granted; and

4. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend (Doc. 14) is denied. 

DATED: March 10, 2016

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 2:15-cv-00822-KJM-CMK Document 20 Filed 03/10/16 Page 3 of 3