Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02695/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02695-3/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

HENRY A. JONES,

Plaintiff,

v.

G. WHITTED, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:12-cv-2695 MCE KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, currently incarcerated at California State Prison, Los Angeles 

County (CSP-LAC). Plaintiff proceeds pro se in this civil rights action, brought pursuant 42 

U.S.C. § 1983, which challenges conditions of plaintiff’s confinement when he was incarcerated 

at California State Prison-Sacramento (CSP-SAC) in 2011. On November 25, 2013, this court 

found that plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint, together with exhibits attached to plaintiff’s 

previously-filed complaints, appears to state potentially cognizable claims against defendants G. 

Whitted, J. Jones and D. Reed. (See ECF No. 15.) By separate order the court is ordering service 

of process upon those defendants.

Plaintiff now requests the appointment of counsel, on the ground that he “is a mental 

Health inmate [with] a Disability (mentally) and Does not comprehend a civil law or procedures.” 

(Sic.) (ECF No. 17 at 1.) Plaintiff has submitted two exhibits in support of his request. The first 

exhibit is an October 9, 2012 declaration by CSP-SAC Senior Librarian A. Nappi, which states in 

Case 2:12-cv-02695-MCE-KJN Document 19 Filed 01/07/14 Page 1 of 3
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

pertinent part that plaintiff “may be unable to effectively communicate with the court or fully 

prosecute this action due to the claimed disability Low Reading Level/Lack of concentration/Low 

cognitive fuction (sic) (Disability)[.] Assistance of Counsel (Requested Accommodation).” 

(ECF No. 17 at 3.) The second exhibit is comprised of excerpts from a March 28, 2007 letter (27-

page evaluation) written by neuropsychologist Deborah Ely Budding, Ph.D., to Deputy Federal 

Public Defender Anne Hwang. Dr. Budding’s evaluation notes that plaintiff has cognitive and 

mental health challenges, and opines that “it is unlikely that Mr. Jones would be able to reliably 

fill out his habeas petition paperwork in a complete and timely fashion without assistance.” (ECF 

No. 17 at 16.)

District courts lack authority to require any attorney to represent indigent prisoners in 

Section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in 

“exceptional circumstances,” the court may request that an attorney voluntarily represent a civil 

rights plaintiff. See 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, the court must consider the plaintiff’s 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). 

The burden 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 warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. 

Having considered the factors under Palmer, the court finds that plaintiff has failed to 

meet his burden of demonstrating, at the present time, exceptional circumstances warranting the 

appointment of counsel. While it appears that plaintiff may have significant cognitive and 

psychological limitations, these matters are common to many prisoners. Moreover, Dr. 

Budding’s evaluation is nearly seven years old, and the opinion of the CSP-SAC librarian lacks 

objective substantiation (e.g., attachment of a recent reading score). Should plaintiff seek to 

again request appointment of counsel, he must submit current medical and other records 

demonstrating his alleged psychological and cognitive limitations. Plaintiff’s instant request will 

Case 2:12-cv-02695-MCE-KJN Document 19 Filed 01/07/14 Page 2 of 3
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

therefore be denied without prejudice. 

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

counsel (ECF No. 17), is denied without prejudice.

SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 7, 2014

jone2695.31.kjn

Case 2:12-cv-02695-MCE-KJN Document 19 Filed 01/07/14 Page 3 of 3