Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00369/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00369-7/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 

RODNEY V. COLEMAN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

M.E. SPEARMAN, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:19-cv-0369 AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action, asks the court to 

reconsider its denial of his motion to appoint counsel filed March 2022. See ECF Nos. 30, 33, 35. 

The court construes the filing as a second motion for the appointment of counsel. 

 In support of the motion, plaintiff states that the appointment of counsel is warranted 

because prison officials have not allowed him to receive a special typewriter that better assists 

him with his ADA needs, in violation of their own rules and regulations. In addition, plaintiff 

anticipates that extensive daily programming at the prison will limit his ability to respond to 

court-ordered deadlines in a timely manner. ECF No. 35. 

 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). To date, plaintiff 

has filed documents and responded to court orders in a largely timely and satisfactory manner. 

Case 2:19-cv-00369-DC-AC Document 38 Filed 05/19/22 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 

Moreover, the fact that prison officials are not following their own rules and regulations does not 

provide a basis for relief. The challenges that plaintiff faces do not constitute extraordinary 

circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel. 

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

counsel (ECF No. 35) is DENIED. 

DATED: May 19, 2022 

Case 2:19-cv-00369-DC-AC Document 38 Filed 05/19/22 Page 2 of 2