Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01347/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01347-1/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 

ROBERT EPPS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CSP SACRAMENTO, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-1347 MCE AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights 

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 24, 2014, the court screened the complaint (ECF 

No. 8), and ordered plaintiff to submit service documents within 30 days. ECF No. 9. Plaintiff 

has instead filed a motion for appointment of counsel. The motion will be denied. 

District courts may not require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. 

Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, where willing counsel 

is available, the district court “may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford 

counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 

1103 (9th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1128 (2005). 

The district court may appoint such counsel where “exceptional circumstances” exist. 

Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 559 U.S. 906 (2010) (citing 

Agyeman, 390 F.3d at 1103). In determining whether or not exceptional circumstances exist, “a 

Case 2:14-cv-01347-MCE-AC Document 16 Filed 12/03/14 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

court must consider ‘the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner 

to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Palmer, 

560 F.3d at 970 (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). Circumstances 

common to 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. See, e.g., Guess v. Lopez, 2014 WL 1883875 at *5 (E.D. Cal. 2014) (Claire, M.J.). The 

court does not find exceptional circumstances in this case, at this time. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 

 1. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 15) is DENIED. 

 2. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall submit the documents 

specified in the court’s October 24, 2014 order at page 5, ¶ 6. 

DATED: December 3, 2014 

Case 2:14-cv-01347-MCE-AC Document 16 Filed 12/03/14 Page 2 of 2