Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02290/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02290-54/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

STEWART MANAGO,

Plaintiff,

v.

BRAD WILLIAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:07-cv-02290 TLN KJN P

ORDER

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

1983. Plaintiff requests that the court appoint counsel. 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 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 

Case 2:07-cv-02290-TLN-KJN Document 320 Filed 07/01/15 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

establish exceptional circumstances that warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. 

The court finds that plaintiff has a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of this 

case, but that the complexity of the legal issues involved likely prevents plaintiff from 

successfully articulating his claims pro se at trial.

Having considered the factors under Palmer, the court finds that plaintiff has met his 

burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel at this 

time. 

One other matter requires the court’s attention. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of 

counsel includes a lengthy discussion of alleged discovery abuses by defendants’ counsel. 

Plaintiff is cautioned that discovery in this matter is closed, and absent a showing of good cause 

by plaintiff’s counsel, discovery will not be reopened. Plaintiff is advised that reopening 

discovery at this point would likely further delay trial by years. Plaintiff is also advised that any 

further pro se filings regarding discovery-related matters will be grounds for sanctions.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s June 22, 2015 motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 318) is 

granted.

2. Alternative Dispute Resolution and Pro Bono Program Director Sujean Park is directed

to locate an attorney, admitted to practice in this court, who is willing to accept this appointment

and represent plaintiff for the purposes of trial.

3. The deadlines previously set for the parties to serve their pretrial statements, and for 

plaintiff to bring any motions necessary to obtain the attendance of witnesses at trial, are vacated. 

Upon the appointment of counsel for plaintiff, the court will set a status conference at which new 

deadlines will be set. This matter remains set for jury trial before the Honorable Troy L. Nunley 

on June 13, 2016, at 9:00 a.m., in Courtroom 2.

4. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time (ECF No. 319) is denied as moot.

Dated: July 1, 2015

/mana2290.31.kjn

Case 2:07-cv-02290-TLN-KJN Document 320 Filed 07/01/15 Page 2 of 2