Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00706/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00706-2/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

ROBERT AUSTIN JOHNSON, No. 2:13-cv-0706-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

SIERRA CONSERVATION CENTER, et al.

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has filed a request for the appointment of counsel (Doc. 3). 

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 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. 

1

Case 2:13-cv-00706-CMK Document 12 Filed 03/27/14 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

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, the facts and law concerning plaintiff’s claims are not overly complex. 

Second, the record demonstrates that plaintiff so far appears able to articulate his claims on his

own as his pleadings are legible and articulate. Third, at this early state of the proceedings, the

court cannot say that plaintiff has demonstrated any particular likelihood of success on the

merits.

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

appointment of counsel (Doc. 3) is denied.

DATED: March 26, 2014

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 2:13-cv-00706-CMK Document 12 Filed 03/27/14 Page 2 of 2