Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01437/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01437-6/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

WALTER LANGSTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

SERGEANT SHARMA,

Defendant.

No. 2:15-cv-1437 GEB KJN P

ORDER

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

1983. On May 27, 2016, plaintiff filed a document referencing the instant case number, as well 

as the case number for his currently pending petition for writ of habeas corpus, Case No. 16-cv0829 EFB. Plaintiff asks for an extension of time to comply with this court’s April 22, 2016 

order, and also seeks the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff states that he cannot comply with the 

court’s order because he has been hospitalized in a crisis bed due to mental illness. Plaintiff also 

claims that he can no longer proceed pro se as of May 9, 2016. 

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 

Case 2:15-cv-01437-GEB-KJN Document 28 Filed 06/02/16 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

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 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 exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of 

counsel at this time. To date, plaintiff has effectively litigated this case, which involves relatively 

straightforward Eighth Amendment claims based on medical treatment. 

In light of plaintiff’s present hospitalization, the court grants plaintiff additional time in 

which to submit the documents for service pursuant to the April 22, 2016 court order.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 27) is denied without 

prejudice.

2. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 27) is granted; and

3. Plaintiff is granted sixty days from the date of this order in which to file submit the 

documents for service.

Dated: June 2, 2016

/lang1437.31+36

Case 2:15-cv-01437-GEB-KJN Document 28 Filed 06/02/16 Page 2 of 2