Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00057/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00057-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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 E. MODICA, SR., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

RUSSELL, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-00057 MCE AC PS 

ORDER 

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

rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Presently pending is plaintiff’s third request for 

appointment of counsel. See ECF No. 50. Plaintiff avers that he requires the assistance of 

counsel due to his mental health conditions and medication, and to better present his case. 

Plaintiff states that, after participating in a settlement conference in this action, it became 

apparent to him that he is “outmanned in knowledge and resources” and at an “undisputed 

disadvantage.” Id. at 1-2. 

 As this court has previously informed plaintiff, the undersigned is without authority to 

require any attorney to represent an indigent civil rights plaintiff. Mallard v. United States Dist. 

Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in exceptional circumstances, the court may request 

that a specific attorney 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 

Case 2:15-cv-00057-MCE-AC Document 51 Filed 06/08/16 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

(9th Cir. 1990). In making this assessment, the court must consider plaintiff’s likelihood of 

success on the merits of his action as well as plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claims pro se in 

light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th 

Cir. 2009). Plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances; however, 

circumstances common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education, do not establish such 

exceptional circumstances. Id. The court must also be cognizant that only a few attorneys are 

available to undertake such voluntary representation. 

In the present case, the court again finds that plaintiff has not met his burden of 

demonstrating the requisite exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff has repeatedly demonstrated his 

ability to articulate and pursue his claims pro se. Moreover, the underlying alleged facts of this 

case are relatively succinct, focusing on an alleged single and relatively brief incident involving 

only two defendants. Plaintiff is no longer incarcerated, according him ample opportunity to 

obtain assistance through local law libraries and clinics. Further, as this court previously found, 

“while plaintiff states that his medical conditions impede his ability to proceed pro se, the only 

injury identified in this action is a scar to the back of plaintiff’s left hand, without any allegation 

that the injury impaired plaintiff’s ability to use his hand. There are no pertinent allegations in 

plaintiff’s former case, Modica v. Cox et al., Case No. 2:11-cv-02163 DAD P, demonstrating a 

disabling medical condition.” See ECF No. 4 at 5. There remains a reasonable likelihood that 

plaintiff may succeed on the merits of his claims. However, the personal circumstances that 

plaintiff recounts are relatively common to indigent litigants, and therefore fail to demonstrate 

exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel at this time. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s third request for appointment of 

counsel, ECF No. 50, is denied without prejudice. 

DATED: June 7, 2016 

Case 2:15-cv-00057-MCE-AC Document 51 Filed 06/08/16 Page 2 of 2