Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-00471/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-00471-11/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JASON LATRELL THOMAS, No. 2:12-CV-0471-MCE-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

TERRY, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court are plaintiff’s motions (Docs. 60, 64, 65, 75, and

83) for appointment of counsel.

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to

require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. See Mallard v. United States

Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the court may

request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See Terrell v.

Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36

(9th Cir. 1990). A finding of “exceptional circumstances” requires an evaluation of both the

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

1

Case 2:12-cv-00471-MCE-CMK Document 101 Filed 09/23/15 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

own in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017. 

Neither factor is dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision. See

id. In Terrell, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion with

respect to appointment of counsel because: 

. . . Terrell demonstrated sufficient writing ability and legal

knowledge to articulate his claim. The facts he alleged and the issues he

raised were not of substantial complexity. The compelling evidence

against Terrell made it extremely unlikely that he would succeed on the

merits. 

Id. at 1017. 

In his motions, plaintiff cites psychiatric problems and mental illness as

warranting appointment of counsel. He notes that in another matter, Thomas v. Wilber, et al.,

Eastern District of California case no. 1:10-CV-0006-SKO, pro bono counsel has been

appointed. Plaintiff states that he is currently taking psychotropic medication and that his mental

health fluctuates. He also notes a May 19, 2015, letter from the facility captain at the California

Health Care Facility noting that his “mental health status and treatment regime have severely

restricted his ability to have access to his legal documents and Legal Library usage.” It should be

noted that, as of August 2015, plaintiff is no longer housed in an institution specific to inmate

mental health but has been transferred to Pelican Bay State Prison. 

In the present case, the court finds that the requisite exceptional circumstances do

not exist. Regarding a likelihood of success on the merits, while plaintiff has potentially

meritorious claims against Terry and Lawrence, because plaintiff has not yet filed his fourth

amended complaint, the court cannot evaluate the likelihood of success as to additional

defendants. Moreover, at this early stage of the proceedings, the court cannot say that plaintiff is

likely to prevail in the lawsuit. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

2

Case 2:12-cv-00471-MCE-CMK Document 101 Filed 09/23/15 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

As to plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claims in light of the complexity of the

issues, the court finds that plaintiff has sufficient ability despite apparent mental health issues. 

First, the legal issues are not complex. This case involves alleged use of excessive force in

violation of the Eighth Amendment. The law in this area is well-settled and not complex. 

Additionally, the factual issues do not appear to be overly complex. Further, plaintiff has

demonstrated an ability to articulate his claims and prosecute this litigation on his own. He has

been able to respond appropriately to court orders, and has prepared and filed numerous

amendments to the pleadings. To the extent plaintiff’s mental illness, which appears to currently

be improved with medication as reflected by his transfer out of a prison medical facility, poses

obstacles, plaintiff may seek additional time and other accommodations. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motions (Docs. 60, 64,

65, 75, and 83) for appointment of counsel are denied. 

DATED: September 23, 2015

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 2:12-cv-00471-MCE-CMK Document 101 Filed 09/23/15 Page 3 of 3