Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01450/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01450-7/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 

CHARLES PLUNKETT, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

C. PARHAM, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:19-cv-1450 KJM AC P 

ORDER 

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

request for the appointment of counsel. ECF No. 37. 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). 

“When determining whether ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist, a court must consider ‘the 

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) (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). 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 

Case 2:19-cv-01450-DC-AC Document 38 Filed 04/04/22 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 

exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. 

Plaintiff once again requests counsel on the grounds that she is unable to afford counsel, 

has been unable to find an attorney to represent her, is greatly limited in her ability to litigate due 

to her imprisonment, has limited access to the law library and limited legal knowledge, and will 

require assistance at trial. As the court previously found, these circumstances are common to 

most prisoners, plaintiff has thus far shown herself capable of articulating her claims without 

assistance, and any request based on the need for counsel at trial is premature. For these reasons, 

plaintiff has not demonstrated that extraordinary circumstances warranting the appointment of 

counsel exist. 

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

counsel (ECF No. 37) is DENIED. 

DATED: April 4, 2022 

Case 2:19-cv-01450-DC-AC Document 38 Filed 04/04/22 Page 2 of 2