Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00517/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00517-33/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ETUATE SEKONA,

Plaintiff,

v.

F. CUSTINO,

Defendant.

No. 2:16-CV-0517-JAM-DMC-P

ORDER

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action. Pending 

before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion, ECF No. 173, for the appointment of counsel. 

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

require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in civil rights 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 

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 the district court did not abuse its discretion with respect 

Case 2:16-cv-00517-DMC Document 180 Filed 11/05/21 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

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

circumstances. According to Plaintiff, appointment of counsel is warranted because: (1) he is 

indigent; (2) he has been granted in forma pauperis status; and (3) the case is complex. See ECF 

No. 173, pgs. 1-2. Being indigent and being granted in forma pauperis status are not exceptional 

circumstances. To the contrary, they are common among inmate litigants. Further, as stated in a 

previous order denying counsel, the claims raised—an Eighth Amendment safety claim and a due 

process claim—are not complex legally or factually. See ECF No. 129, pg. 2. Additionally, 

Plaintiff has sufficiently been able to articulate his claims thus far. Finally, Plaintiff has not 

argued the likelihood of success on the merits. Plaintiff has made cognizable claims and passed 

summary judgment thus far, but this is not dispositive as to Plaintiff’s likelihood of success. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for the 

appointment of counsel, ECF No. 173, is denied.

Dated: November 5, 2021

____________________________________

DENNIS M. COTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-00517-DMC Document 180 Filed 11/05/21 Page 2 of 2