Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00165/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00165-5/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

NATHANAEL JAMES CARTER, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. MURPHY, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:24-cv-0165 CKD 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 and an expert witness. 

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 

Case 2:24-cv-00165-CKD Document 28 Filed 01/14/25 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

legal education and limited law library access, do not establish exceptional circumstances that 

warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. 

Having considered the factors under Palmer, the court finds that plaintiff has failed to 

meet his burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of 

counsel at this time.

Further, the expenditure of public funds on behalf of an indigent litigant is proper only 

when authorized by Congress. Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210 (9th Cir. 1989). The in forma 

pauperis statute does not authorize the expenditure of public funds for witnesses. See 28 U.S.C. § 

1915. 

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

counsel and an expert witness (ECF No. 25) is denied without prejudice.

Dated: January 14, 2025

1/hh

cart0165.31.new+c

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:24-cv-00165-CKD Document 28 Filed 01/14/25 Page 2 of 2