Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01948/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01948-1/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

SERGAYE LAFAYETTE-PRICE,

Plaintiff,

v.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-1948 KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a 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 common to most prisoners, such as lack of 

Case 2:15-cv-01948-KJN Document 8 Filed 10/01/15 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

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 has failed to 

meet his burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of 

counsel at this time.

In the motion for appointment of counsel, plaintiff includes her home address and states 

that she will “get in touch” with the court as soon as she is released. Because it does not appear 

that plaintiff has been released from custody, the court will continue to serve plaintiff with 

documents at her last known address, i.e., the Rio Cosumnes Correctional Center in Elk Grove, 

California.

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

counsel (ECF No. 6) is denied without prejudice.

Dated: October 1, 2015

lafa1948.31.kjn

Case 2:15-cv-01948-KJN Document 8 Filed 10/01/15 Page 2 of 2