Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00701/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00701-2/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

JAMES EDWARD TRUSCHKE, Jr.,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN ZUFALL, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-0701 DB P

ORDER

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

appointment of counsel on the grounds that he is indigent, incarcerated, and unversed in the law. 

He also asserts that appointment is proper because he has limited access to the law library, he has 

memory problems due to psychiatric medications, and he is mentally ill. 

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). 

The test for exceptional circumstances requires the court to evaluate the plaintiff’s 

likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in 

light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 

Case 2:15-cv-00701-DB Document 41 Filed 10/13/16 Page 1 of 3
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

1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Circumstances 

common to most prisoners, such as indigence, lack of legal education and limited law library 

access, do not establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary 

assistance of counsel. 

Additionally, the mere fact that plaintiff is mentally ill or suffers from some memory 

problems is insufficient to warrant appointment of counsel. Plaintiff must also establish that these 

problems prevent him from understanding and responding to the court’s orders. See Allen v. 

Calderon, 408 F.3d 1150, 1153 (9th Cir. 2005). Plaintiff has not met this requirement. Instead, he 

states only that he is a member of the Enhanced Outpatient Program and that he has suffered 

“mental and spiritual damage” as a result of his continued incarceration. Pl.’s Decl. in Supp. Mot. 

Appt. Counsel (“MAC”) ¶¶ 7-8, ECF No. 36. Plaintiff has submitted evidence of his mental 

illness, Psychotic Disorder NOS, but there is no nexus between it and his ability to articulate his 

claims. An April 30, 2015, medical note indicate that “[i]f placed on antipsychotic medication 

[plaintiff’s] delusions and hallucinations would resolve.” MAC Attach., ECF No. 36 at 19. 

Medical records dated March 17, 2016, indicate that plaintiff is involuntarily administered 

psychotropic medication because he is a danger to himself and to others. Id. at 25. With this 

medication, plaintiff “has engaged in fewer danger to self and danger to other behaviors and his 

hygiene has improved.” Id. at 24.

There is no evidence that plaintiff’s mental impairments impede his ability to litigate this 

case. Indeed, plaintiff’s recent motions, which include the instant motion for appointment of 

counsel and a motion for preliminary injunction, demonstrate an understanding of relevant legal 

issues and cite to appropriate legal authority, and his legal arguments are presented in an 

articulate manner. Since plaintiff has not shown that the interests of justice or exceptional 

circumstances warrant appointment of counsel, his motion will be denied. 

////

////

////

////

Case 2:15-cv-00701-DB Document 41 Filed 10/13/16 Page 2 of 3
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

3

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

counsel (ECF No. 36) is DENIED without prejudice.

Dated: October 13, 2016

/DLB7;trus0701.31

Case 2:15-cv-00701-DB Document 41 Filed 10/13/16 Page 3 of 3