Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00024/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00024-3/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 

RAGHVENDRA SINGH, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

THADD A. BLIZZARD, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:23-cv-0024-DC-SCR 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is a former county inmate proceeding without a lawyer in this civil rights action 

filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff requests that the court appoint counsel. ECF No. 15. 

District courts lack authority under 28 U.S.C. §1915 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 appoint an attorney to voluntarily 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 

Case 2:23-cv-00024-DC-SCR Document 17 Filed 01/06/25 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 

as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not establish exceptional 

circumstances that warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. 

 Having considered the factors under Palmer, the court finds that plaintiff has failed to 

meet his burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of 

counsel at this time. 

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

counsel (ECF No. 15) is denied without prejudice. 

DATED: January 6, 2025 

Case 2:23-cv-00024-DC-SCR Document 17 Filed 01/06/25 Page 2 of 2