Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01810/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01810-5/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 

MERVIN S. DUNFORD, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JEFFEREY A. BEARD, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-1810 AC P 

ORDER 

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

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. 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 

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

Case 2:15-cv-01810-JAM-AC Document 14 Filed 08/17/16 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

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 requests appointment of counsel on the grounds that he has a chronic heart 

condition, chronic chest pain, and is emotionally stressed and anxious. ECF No. 13. Though the 

court is sympathetic to plaintiff’s health issues, he has not established that they create an 

exceptional circumstance warranting the appointment of counsel. Moreover, the court has 

screened the complaint and dismissed it with leave to amend. ECF No. 5. In screening the 

complaint, the court outlined the applicable legal standards for plaintiff and explained to him 

what he would have to show in order to state a claim. Id. There is no evidence that plaintiff has 

attempted to follow the court’s instructions for amending the complaint. At this stage the court is 

therefore unable to evaluate plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits or his ability to 

articulate his claims. For these reasons, the court is unable to find the necessary exceptional 

circumstances at this time and finds that appointment of counsel would be premature at this stage 

of the case. 

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

counsel (ECF No. 13) is denied. 

DATED: August 16, 2016 

Case 2:15-cv-01810-JAM-AC Document 14 Filed 08/17/16 Page 2 of 2