Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00133/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00133-13/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

ANTOINE L. ARDDS,

Plaintiff,

v.

KENNETH MARTIN, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:20-cv-0133 TLN KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se, in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. Plaintiff requests that the court appoint counsel. 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 exceptional circumstances, the court may request an attorney 

to voluntarily represent such a 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 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) (district court did not abuse discretion in declining to appoint counsel). The 

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

////

Case 2:20-cv-00133-TLN-CSK Document 63 Filed 08/21/23 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

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. 

Contrary to plaintiff’s statement that this case is complex because it involves a large 

number of claims and defendants, including ADA and RA claims, this action was significantly 

narrowed following resolution of defendants’ motion for summary judgment on exhaustion 

grounds. Although plaintiff included ADA/RA claims in the second amended complaint, plaintiff 

was only permitted to amend his complaint to raise Eighth Amendment claims exhausted by 

grievance CHCF-HC-20-000548. Indeed, on November 21, 2022, the court struck all claims not 

permitted by the district court’s prior order (ECF No. 48), and defendants were relieved of any 

obligation to respond thereto. (ECF No. 49.) Thus, this action now proceeds solely on plaintiff’s

Eighth Amendment claims as to defendants Kieu, Lundgren, and Bogacs (now known as Levine), 

who served on the IDTT committee, and is limited to the allegations exhausted by grievance 

CHCF-HC-20-000548. (ECF No. 49 at 1-2.) 

The record reflects that plaintiff has diligently prosecuted this action and is able to 

articulate his claims and arguments. 

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

burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel at this 

time.

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

counsel (ECF No. 62) is denied without prejudice.

Dated: August 21, 2023

/ardd0133.31

Case 2:20-cv-00133-TLN-CSK Document 63 Filed 08/21/23 Page 2 of 2