Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00179/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00179-9/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARL FOUST,

Plaintiff,

v.

PEREZ, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:23-CV-0179-DAD-DMC-P

ORDER

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action. Pending 

before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel, ECF No. 13. 

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 district 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). The test for “exceptional circumstances” requires the Court to evaluate the 

plaintiff’s likelihood 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 Wilborn v. Escalderon, 

789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). 

Circumstances common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library 

Case 2:23-cv-00179-DAD-DMC Document 72 Filed 12/05/24 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

access, do not establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary 

assistance of counsel. 

In the present case, the Court does not at this time find the required exceptional 

circumstances. Plaintiff argues that appointment of counsel is warranted because (1) Plaintiff's 

physical impairments such as blindness in one eye and head trauma; (2) diagnosed dyslexia; (3) 

limited access to the law library; (4) low cognitive functioning; and (5) Plaintiff’s limited 

knowledge of the law. Plaintiff’s motion fails to establish that his impairments constitute an 

exceptional circumstance preventing him from prosecuting this action pro se. As to Plaintiff’s 

blindness, the documentation does not establish any limitation associated with this disability.

None of the documentation attached to Plaintiff’s motion indicates that Plaintiff has a learning 

disability. Further, a review of Plaintiff’s filings to date reflects that Plaintiff has been able to 

sufficiently articulate his claims on his own or with assistance provided by the prison law library 

or other inmates. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for the 

appointment of counsel, ECF No. 13, is denied.

Dated: December 4, 2024

____________________________________

DENNIS M. COTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-00179-DAD-DMC Document 72 Filed 12/05/24 Page 2 of 2