Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01749/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01749-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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 

TIMOTHY WATTS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

M. RUGGIERO, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-1749 TLN AC P 

ORDER 

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

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. 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. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th 

Cir. 2009) (district court did not abuse discretion in declining to appoint counsel); Wilborn v. 

Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 

Case 2:13-cv-01749-TLN-AC Document 28 Filed 11/21/14 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

1983). 

Circumstances 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’s representation that he is an inmate who is classified as 

an E.O.P. (Enhanced Outpatient Program) in the prison’s mental health system does not rise to 

the level of an exceptional circumstance. Many prisoners who are able to proceed pro se in civil 

rights actions suffer from both mental and physical disabilities or limitations. Plaintiff has been 

able to frame colorable claims in a pro se complaint against a number of defendants. In the 

present case and at the present time, the court does not find the required exceptional 

circumstances. 

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

counsel (ECF Nos. 25 and 27) are denied. 

DATED: November 20, 2014 

Case 2:13-cv-01749-TLN-AC Document 28 Filed 11/21/14 Page 2 of 2