Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00517/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00517-1/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

ETUATE SEKONA, No. 2:16-CV-0517-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

F. CUSTINO, 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 for the appointment of

counsel (Docs. 3, 19, 22, and 24). Also before the court is plaintiff’s request for an interpreter

(Doc. 4). 

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

1

Case 2:16-cv-00517-DMC Document 27 Filed 02/03/17 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

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

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

circumstances. As to success on the merits, while the court has determined that plaintiff has

stated at least some cognizable claims, the court cannot say at this stage of the proceedings that

plaintiff is likely to succeed. Next, the court does not finds that the legal issues – an Eighth

Amendment safety claim and a due process claim – are complex. Finally, plaintiff has

demonstrated an adequate ability to articulate his claims on his own. 

As to plaintiff’s request for appointment of an interpreter, the record reflects that

plaintiff has been able to communicate effectively with the court in English without the

assistance of a court-appointed interpreter. Further, plaintiff has not cited authority providing for

appointment of an interpreter in civil cases. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel (Docs. 3, 19, 22, and 24)

are denied; and

2. Plaintiff’s request for an interpreter (Doc. 4) is denied. 

DATED: February 3, 2017

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 2:16-cv-00517-DMC Document 27 Filed 02/03/17 Page 2 of 2