Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02040/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02040-18/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 

DIRK JAONG BOUIE, JR., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

OSCAR SMITH, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:18-cv-2040 KJM AC P 

ORDER 

Plaintiff has requested the appointment of counsel. ECF No. 70. The United States 

Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent 

prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In 

certain exceptional circumstances, the district court may request the voluntary assistance of 

counsel pursuant to 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, a court must consider ‘the 

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) (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). 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 establish 

Case 2:18-cv-02040-DC-AC Document 71 Filed 04/20/23 Page 1 of 3
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 

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

Plaintiff requests appointment of counsel on the grounds that he is indigent, will require 

an expert and assistance serving subpoenas, and is vision impaired and receiving mental health 

treatment. ECF No. 70 at 1-3. He also asserts that his case has merit because defendants’ motion 

for summary judgment was denied and an attorney would be better able to present his case at 

trial. Id. at 2-3. To the extent plaintiff bases his request upon the need for assistance at trial or in 

serving subpoenas, the motion is premature as it has not yet been determined whether this case 

will go to trial. Furthermore, defendants’ motion for summary judgment was based on an alleged 

failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and therefore has no bearing on whether plaintiff will 

be successful on the merits. With respect to plaintiff’s claimed impairments, the court has 

previously found that while plaintiff is legally blind and has been diagnosed with various mental 

health conditions, he has failed to provide evidence that he is unable to proceed without counsel. 

See ECF No. 44 at 2-3. The court further found that 

the level of understanding exhibited by plaintiff in pursuing this case 

demonstrates that he can adequately represent himself. Plaintiff was 

able to successfully state a claim that survived screening, and in both 

the current and previous motion for counsel, as well as his requests 

for an expert witness and judicial notice, he presented a legal 

argument, supported it with allegations and an applicable rule, and 

cited some case law. ECF Nos. 30, 33, 37, 38. Although plaintiff’s 

motions have not been successful, they demonstrate that he is capable 

of proceeding without the assistance of counsel. 

Id. at 3. Since then, plaintiff has also successfully defended against defendants’ motion for 

summary judgment. See ECF No. 67 (denying motion for summary judgment). 

Finally, with respect to plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel to obtain an expert 

witness, the court does not find that plaintiff has established the need for expert testimony given 

the claims on which this case proceeds1 and has previously declined to appoint counsel for that 

purpose. ECF No. 36. For the reasons outlined above, the court does not find extraordinary 

circumstances exist to warrant the appointment of counsel and once again declines to appoint 

1

 Plaintiff has alleged that defendants ignored his statements that he was feeling suicidal, 

subjected him to excessive force, and refused to treat his injuries after the use of force. ECF No. 

1. 

Case 2:18-cv-02040-DC-AC Document 71 Filed 04/20/23 Page 2 of 3
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 

3 

counsel for the purpose of obtaining an expert witness. 

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

counsel (ECF No. 70) is DENIED. 

DATED: April 20, 2023 

Case 2:18-cv-02040-DC-AC Document 71 Filed 04/20/23 Page 3 of 3