Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02052/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02052-7/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

DERRICK K. COURTNEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

POOJA KANDEL, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:18-CV-2052-KJM-DMC-P

ORDER

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel. 

See ECF No. 40. 

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 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). 

A finding of “exceptional circumstances” requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of 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 Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017. Neither factor is 

dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision. See id. In Terrell, the 

Case 2:18-cv-02052-KJM-DMC Document 42 Filed 03/24/20 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

Ninth Circuit concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion with respect to appointment 

of counsel because: 

. . . Terrell demonstrated sufficient writing ability and legal knowledge to 

articulate his claim. The facts he alleged and the issues he raised were not 

of substantial complexity. The compelling evidence against Terrell made it 

extremely unlikely that he would succeed on the merits. 

Id. at 1017. 

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

circumstances. According to plaintiff, counsel should be appointed because: (1) he is unable to 

afford counsel; (2) he is incarcerated; (3) the issues involved in the case are complex; and (4) he 

has limited access to a law library. See ECF No. 40, pgs. 1-2. These circumstances are not 

extraordinary. To the contrary, they are ordinary for prisoners pursuing civil rights claims. 

Regarding the Terrell factors, in advance of the filings of any pre-trial dispositive 

motions, it is not possible to determine whether plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. 

Moreover, the legal issue in this case – whether defendants violated plaintiff’s constitutional 

rights by failing to adequately treat a mandibular fracture – is not complex legally. It does not 

currently appear that plaintiff’s claim is factually complex. Finally, plaintiff has demonstrated an 

adequate ability to articulate his claims on his own. 

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

appointment of counsel (ECF No. 40) is denied.

Dated: March 23, 2020

____________________________________

DENNIS M. COTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:18-cv-02052-KJM-DMC Document 42 Filed 03/24/20 Page 2 of 2