Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02052/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02052-8/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFF HEALY,

Plaintiff,

v.

SHAGUFTA YASMEEN, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:19-CV-2052-WBS-DMC-P

ORDER

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

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s second motion, ECF No. 37, for the 

appointment of counsel.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case 2:19-cv-02052-DMC Document 45 Filed 09/28/21 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

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

of counsel because: 

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

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

of substantial complexity. The compelling evidence against Terrell made it 

extremely unlikely that he would succeed on the merits. 

Id. at 1017.

 

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

circumstances. Plaintiff argues appointment of counsel is warranted because: (1) he cannot afford 

to retain counsel; (2) the issues involved in the case are complex; (3) the Court has already 

determined Plaintiff’s case has merit if the allegations are proven; (4) Plaintiff has no law library 

access due to COVID-19 restrictions; (5) Plaintiff is unable to present his case “due to wheelchair 

confinement, vision disabilities, and polyneuropathy”; (6) Plaintiff has limited knowledge of the 

law; (7) Defendants are resisting his discovery requests; and (8) Plaintiff has been transferred 

among three separate facilities in the past two months and is currently separated from his legal 

materials. See ECF No. 37. 

These circumstances are not uncommon among prisoners and are not the types of 

exceptional circumstances necessary for the appointment of counsel. As to Plaintiff’s physical 

limitations, Plaintiff has not presented any evidence that these limitations impede his ability to 

litigate this case. To the contrary, a review of Plaintiff’s filings to date suggests that he is able to 

do so. As to the merits, while the Court has concluded that Plaintiff could prevail if the 

allegations are proved, Plaintiff has not at this stage of the litigation demonstrated that he is likely 

to prevail. The Court’s prior finding assumed the allegations in the complaint are true and, based 

on this assumption, that the action was appropriate for service. This finding expressed no opinion 

at the pleading stage as to the likelihood of any particular result. Next, the legal and factual 

issues in this case do not appear so complex as to justify the appointment of counsel. Finally, to 

the extent Plaintiff is experiencing difficulties due to COVID-19 restrictions or having been 

transferred to various facilities, the Court will entertain motions for additional time to comply 

with deadlines in the case, for good cause shown. 

Case 2:19-cv-02052-DMC Document 45 Filed 09/28/21 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

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

appointment of counsel, ECF No. 37, is denied.

Dated: September 28, 2021

____________________________________

DENNIS M. COTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:19-cv-02052-DMC Document 45 Filed 09/28/21 Page 3 of 3