Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00592/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00592-2/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

LAWRENCE J. JACKSON, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. AUSTIN, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-0592 KJM KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se, in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. On April 9, 2014, the court accorded plaintiff the option of proceeding on his original 

complaint against only defendant J. Austin, OR filing an amended complaint with the goal of 

stating potentially cognizable claims against all named defendants. (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff 

responded by: (1) requesting an extension of time within which to comply with the court’s order; 

(2) submitting service documents for defendant Austin; and (3) requesting appointment of 

counsel. The court addresses these matters ad seriatim.

First, for good cause shown, plaintiff’s request for an extension of time within which to 

comply with the court’s April 9, 2014 order, is granted. Plaintiff shall, within 30 days after 

service of this order, file an amended complaint OR inform the court that plaintiff wishes to 

proceed on the original complaint and serve process only on defendant Austin.

////

Case 2:14-cv-00592-KJM-KJN Document 16 Filed 05/19/14 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

27

28

2

Second, although plaintiff has submitted service documents for defendant Austin, his 

request for an extension of time specifically states that, “Plaintiff does not wish . . . for this first 

summons to be processed until this extension has been decided upon.” (ECF No. 14 at 2.) 

Therefore, the court will retain these service documents pending further notice from plaintiff.

Third, plaintiff requests appointment of counsel. Plaintiff states that he is without funds to 

hire counsel; has tried unsuccessfully to secure representation on a contingency basis; that the 

issues in his case are both meritorious and complex; that plaintiff is a layman with limited 

education and knowledge of the law; that plaintiff’s incarceration limits his ability to “marshal 

evidence in his behalf and interview witnesses;” and that appointment is necessary to conduct 

discovery and obtain expert witnesses, so as not to trigger potentially retaliatory conduct by 

prison officials. 

District courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 

1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional 

circumstances, the court may request an attorney to voluntarily to 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 (9th Cir. 1990). When determining whether “exceptional 

circumstances” exist, the court must consider plaintiff’s 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) (district court did not 

abuse discretion in declining to appoint counsel). 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 exceptional circumstances that 

warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. 

In the present case, plaintiff’s several reasons for requesting appointment of counsel are 

common to most prisoners. While the court is cognizant that this action proceeds on a claim of 

excessive force by a correctional officer, plaintiff has asserted no specific circumstances requiring 

exceptional care in discovery. Moreover, this case is still at its inception – plaintiff may be filing 

an amended complaint. Therefore, having considered the factors under Palmer, the court finds 

Case 2:14-cv-00592-KJM-KJN Document 16 Filed 05/19/14 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

27

28

3

that plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances warranting 

the appointment of counsel at this time.

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time (ECF No. 14), within which to comply with 

the court’s April 9, 2013 order, is granted; plaintiff shall, within thirty (30) days after service of 

this order, file an Amended Complaint OR inform the court that he wishes to proceed on his 

original complaint against defendant J. Austin only;

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to hold the service documents plaintiff submitted for 

defendant J. Austin, until further notice; and 

3. Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 13), is denied without 

prejudice.

SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 19, 2014

/jack0592.31 & 36

Case 2:14-cv-00592-KJM-KJN Document 16 Filed 05/19/14 Page 3 of 3