Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01774/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01774-4/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEON E. MORRIS, No. 2:12-cv-1774-TLN-CMK

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

V. MINI, et al.

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff seeks the appointment of counsel (Doc. 24). 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. 

1

Case 2:12-cv-01774-TLN-DMC Document 25 Filed 02/26/16 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

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

circumstances. Plaintiff has demonstrated sufficient ability to articulate his claim. While it

appears he has received assistance from other prisoners, the undersigned cannot say plaintiff

would be incapable based on the information before the court. The taking of psychotrophic

medication, antidepressants and pain medication do not necessarily prevent plaintiff from

articulating his claims. If plaintiff needs additional time to respond, he may so request as he has

done. As to the specific issues in this case, the court finds his claims to be vague as currently

plead in his complaint. It appears the deficiencies are not due to his inability to articulate his

claim, but rather stem from the lack of facts set forth in the complaint. His claims appear to

relate to areas of the law that are fairly well-settled and not overly complex, at least as the

undersigned understands the facts in this case. At this early stage of the proceedings, especially

in light of the findings and recommendations issued concurrently recommending the complaint

be dismissed with leave to amend, the undersigned cannot say that plaintiff is likely to prevail in

the lawsuit. However, if plaintiff successfully files an amended complaint which states a claim,

he may be able to renew his request for appointment of counsel. However, until such time, the

undersigned does not find the required circumstances for appointment of counsel at this stage of

the proceedings. 

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

appointment of counsel (Doc. 24) is denied.

DATED: February 25, 2016

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 2:12-cv-01774-TLN-DMC Document 25 Filed 02/26/16 Page 2 of 2