Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00758/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00758-1/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 

SIDNI ALFRED MOORE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

RICK HILL, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:22-cv-0758 DJC AC P 

ORDER 

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

appointment of counsel. ECF No. 9. In support of the motion, plaintiff states in part that he is 

unable to afford an attorney; that his case is complex and will require significant research and 

investigation; and that his imprisonment will affect his ability to litigate. Id. at 1 

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 2:22-cv-00758-DC-AC Document 11 Filed 09/27/23 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. 

A general review of the complaint indicates that plaintiff has filled out the court’s form 

and supplemented it with supporting documentation. See generally ECF No. 1 In addition, 

plaintiff’s claims are relatively easy to understand. For these reasons, the court does not find the 

required exceptional circumstances. 

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

counsel (ECF No. 9) is DENIED. 

DATED: September 27, 2023 

Case 2:22-cv-00758-DC-AC Document 11 Filed 09/27/23 Page 2 of 2