Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01187/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01187-12/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

KEVIN ALLEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

V. BENTACOURT, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:18-cv-1187 JLT GSA (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

AND REQUEST FOR COPY OF 

COMPLAINT

(ECF No. 62.)

Plaintiff has filed a motion for the appointment of counsel. ECF No. 62. In support of it, 

Plaintiff states in part that he is being denied access to the courts due to an inadequate county jail

law library; a lack of access to legal books, and a lack of access to legal copies. Id. at 1-8. In 

addition, the motion asks that the court send him a copy of his complaint. Id. at 7.

For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s request that the Court send him a copy of his 

complaint will be denied. His motion for the appointment of counsel will also be denied.

I. MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

A. Applicable Law

1. Appointment of Counsel

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that 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 certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the

Case 1:18-cv-01187-JLT-GSA Document 63 Filed 10/05/23 Page 1 of 4
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

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).

2. Access to Courts

It is well-established that prisoners have a constitutional right to have access to the courts. 

Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821 (1977), abrogated by Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996); 

Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816 (9th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted) (stating same); see Hebbe

v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). However, prison law libraries are not ends in 

themselves to provide such access. See Lewis, 518 U.S. at 351. They are simply a means for 

ensuring “a reasonably adequate opportunity to present claimed violations of fundamental 

constitutional rights to the courts.” Id. (citation omitted) (quotation marks in original). 

Accordingly, a prisoner cannot have a freestanding right to a law library by simply establishing 

that his prison’s law library . . . is subpar in some theoretical sense.” Id.

Furthermore, any denial of access to courts must be accompanied by a showing that the 

shortcomings in a prison law library hindered an inmate’s efforts to pursue a legal claim. Nasby 

v. Nevada, 79 F.4th 1052, 1056 (9th Cir. 2023) (citing Lewis, 518 U.S. at 351). The prisoner 

“must identify a ‘nonfrivolous,’ ‘arguable’ underlying claim” and the specific remedy he lost in 

order to give the defendant fair notice of his allegations. SeeChristopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 

403, 415-16 (2002) (citations omitted); Madrid v. Gomez, 190 F.3d 990, 995-96 (9th Cir. 1999) 

(stating need for causal connection between subpar legal assistance and hindrance of effort to 

pursue legal claim).

Finally, the scope of the right of access to the courts is limited. Madrid, 190 F.3d at 995. 

“Prisoners need only have the minimal help necessary to file legal claims.” Id. (internal quotation 

marks omitted) (citing Lewis, 518 U.S. at 360). 

B. Discussion

1. Appointment of Counsel

Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel on the grounds that he is being denied 

access to the courts must be denied for several reasons. First, the appointment of counsel is not 

Case 1:18-cv-01187-JLT-GSA Document 63 Filed 10/05/23 Page 2 of 4
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

3

required to remedy a denial of access to courts were the latter to be established. Plaintiff provides 

no law that states otherwise. See generally ECF No. 62.

Next, any lack of access to the county jail’s law library does not constitute an exceptional 

circumstance. See, e.g., Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-35 (9th Cir. 1990) (denying 

appointment of counsel where plaintiff alleged limited access to law library and lack of legal 

education). Limited access to the law library is a circumstance that is common to most prisoners. 

For these reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel will be denied.

2. Access to Courts

As for Plaintiff’s overlapping denial of access to the courts argument, it is without merit. 

First, it is wholly contradictory. One hand, Plaintiff argues that the county jail law library is 

inadequate. See id. ECF No. 62 at 2. On the other hand, he asserts that he has made several 

requests to use it. Id. at 3-7. These clear contradictions undercut the court access argument on its 

face. In any event, as stated earlier, access to a jail’s law library is not the sole way an inmate’s 

access to the courts may be provided. See Lewis, 518 U.S. at 351.

Plaintiff’s denial of access to courts argument also fails to identify the specific harm he 

has experienced due to his stated inability to access the jail’s law library. See generally ECF No. 

62. The motion simply asserts that jail officials’ denial of his access to the law library, to legal 

books, and to case law has affected his ability to conduct discovery. See id. at 6-7. Precisely how 

not being able to access the jail’s library has done that, Plaintiff does not say. See generally ECF 

No. 62. Generally, discovery proceedings are comprised of requests for admissions, requests for 

the production of documents, and interrogatories. Arguably, the legal research required to 

participate in the discovery process is minimal, and in any event, the court is required to construe 

liberally any related pleadings Plaintiff, a pro se litigant, may file. Erikson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 

89, 94 (2007) (“A document filed pro se is to be ‘liberally construed . . . .’.”); see Estelle v. 

Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s argument that his ability to conduct 

discovery has been affected by any limited access to the jail’s law library is unpersuasive.

Furthermore, although Plaintiff has provided multiple law library request forms in support 

of his denial of access to courts argument (see id. at 10-43), he has failed to provide the jail’s 

Case 1:18-cv-01187-JLT-GSA Document 63 Filed 10/05/23 Page 3 of 4
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

4

responses to his requests.

1

 As a result, it is unclear whether some of the documents and supplies 

he requested were, in fact, provided to him. For these reasons, Plaintiff’s argument that the 

county jail has deprived him of his constitutional right to access to the courts is without merit as 

well, and it, too, fails to support his request for the appointment of counsel.

II. REQUEST FOR COPY OF COMPLAINT

Finally, to the extent that Plaintiff argues that this court’s earlier denial of his request for a 

free copy of his First Amended Complaint is also depriving him of his right of access to the 

courts (see ECF No. 62 at 4-5, 7), this argument is also without merit. As Plaintiff has been 

previously informed,

2

under 28 U.S.C. § 2250, the Clerk of Court is not required to furnish copies 

without cost to an indigent litigant except by order of the judge. Therefore, this request will also 

be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 62 at 1-2, 6-7) is 

DENIED.

2. Plaintiff’s request for a copy of his complaint (ECF No. 62 at 4-5, 7) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 5, 2023 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

 Plaintiff does provide one official response from the jail’s Grievance Team. See ECF No. 62 at 

28. In it, Plaintiff had requested copies of his legal writ, but it was denied. Id. However, the

same document states that the Grievance Team told Plaintiff that his request would be forwarded 

the jail’s Legal Unit. Id.

2

 See ECF 51 at 4 (Court’s June 2023 denial of Plaintiff’s request for copies).

Case 1:18-cv-01187-JLT-GSA Document 63 Filed 10/05/23 Page 4 of 4