Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02154/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02154-32/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

RICHARD KIMBRO,

Plaintiff,

v.

MIRANDA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:12-cv-2154 MCE KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. This action is set for jury trial before the undersigned for May 23, 2016.

Plaintiff requests that the court appoint counsel. 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 

Case 2:12-cv-02154-MCE-KJN Document 153 Filed 02/05/16 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

27

28

2

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 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.

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

of counsel (ECF No. 149) is denied without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 4, 2016

Case 2:12-cv-02154-MCE-KJN Document 153 Filed 02/05/16 Page 2 of 2