Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02220/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02220-6/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 

ROBERT WILLIAM TUNSTALL, JR., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

T. VIRGA, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-2220 TLN AC P (TEMP) 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action, has filed his seventh 

request for appointment of counsel. (See ECF Nos. 3, 12, 13, 14, 15, 23). Each of these previous 

requests was denied. (ECF Nos. 16, 17, 24.) 

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, 

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

Case 2:14-cv-02220-TLN-DB Document 56 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

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. 

Plaintiff seeks appointment of counsel because he has dementia; he is hearing, mobility, 

and vision impaired; and he is being denied daily access to the law library. The court, however, 

does not find the required exceptional circumstances here. Not only does plaintiff fail to support 

his claim of dementia with any medical documentation, but his pleading is premised on his ability 

to communicate effectively in written form despite his various impairments. Furthermore, 

plaintiff does not have a right to daily access to the law library. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 

343, 346 (1996). The undersigned notes that plaintiff has demonstrated an adequate ability to 

write and articulate his claims pro se, he has not demonstrated that the issues involved in this case 

are complex or that he has had any difficulties in expressing them, and, lastly, he has not shown a 

likelihood of success on the merits aside from his conclusory statements that his case has merit. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s March 29, 2016, motion for the 

appointment of counsel (ECF No. 55) is denied. 

DATED: June 2, 2016 

 

Case 2:14-cv-02220-TLN-DB Document 56 Filed 06/02/16 Page 2 of 2