Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01203/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01203-2/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 

27 

28 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

STANLEY GLEASON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

T. LINDQUIST, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:19-cv-1203 JAM AC P 

ORDER 

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

appointment of counsel, as well as a scheduling order, pretrial conference, and consent decree for 

injunction. 

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). 

“When determining whether ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist, a court must consider ‘the 

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) (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). The burden 

Case 2:19-cv-01203-JAM-AC Document 43 Filed 05/11/20 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 

of demonstrating exceptional circumstances is on the plaintiff. Id. Circumstances 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. 

Plaintiff has not provided any reasons why appointment of counsel would be warranted in this 

case, and the motion will therefore be denied. 

With respect to plaintiff’s other requests, findings and recommendations on his motions 

for injunctive relief are currently pending before the District Judge, ECF No. 31, and requests for 

a scheduling order and pretrial conference are both premature. These requests will therefore be 

denied. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion at ECF No. 42 is denied 

in its entirety. 

DATED: May 8, 2020 

Case 2:19-cv-01203-JAM-AC Document 43 Filed 05/11/20 Page 2 of 2