Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00478/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00478-10/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

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to

18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s third motion for the appointment of

19 counsel (ECF No. 61).

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

21 require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. See Mallard v. United States Dist.

22 Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the

23 voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See Terrell v. Brewer, 935

24 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990).

25 A finding of “exceptional circumstances” requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success

26 on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims on his own in light of the

27 complexity of the legal issues involved. See Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017. Neither factor is

28 dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision. See id. In Terrell, the

RICHARD V. ROOD,

Plaintiff,

v.

GARY SWARTHOUT, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:13-CV-0478-JAM-DMC-P

ORDER

Case 2:13-cv-00478-JAM-DMC Document 65 Filed 02/13/20 Page 1 of 2
2

1 Ninth Circuit concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion with respect to appointment

2 of counsel because:

3 . . . Terrell demonstrated sufficient writing ability and legal knowledge to 

articulate his claim. The facts he alleged and the issues he raised were not

4 of substantial complexity. The compelling evidence against Terrell made it

extremely unlikely that he would succeed on the merits.

5

Id. at 1017.

6

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

8 circumstances. Plaintiff cites the following reasons supporting the appointment of counsel: (1) he

9 is indigent; (2) prior requests for counsel were denied without prejudice; and (3) plaintiff is

10 incarcerated with limited law library access. These circumstances are not exception but represent

11 the norm for most prisoner litigants. Moreover, at this stage of the proceedings before discovery

12 has been completed and before any dispositive motions have been filed, it cannot be said that

13 plaintiff has demonstrated any particular likelihood of success on the merits. Finally, a review of

14 the file in this case reflects that plaintiff is able to articulate his claims, which are neither factually

15 nor legally complex.

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

17 appointment of counsel (ECF No. 61) is denied. 

18

19

20 Dated: February 12, 2020

21 DENNIS M. COTA

22 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case 2:13-cv-00478-JAM-DMC Document 65 Filed 02/13/20 Page 2 of 2