Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00741/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00741-3/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

KYRON SHAKIR,

Plaintiff,

v.

N. ALBONICO, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:24-cv-0741 DAD CKD P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff requests an extension of time to file an amended complaint. Good cause appearing, that 

request will be granted.

Plaintiff also asks 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 2:24-cv-00741-DAD-CKD Document 10 Filed 10/31/24 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:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 9) is denied;

2. The court’s October 25, 2024, findings and recommendations are vacated;

3. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 9) is granted; and

4. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to file an amended 

complaint. Plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint within 30 days will result in a 

recommendation that this action be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

Dated: October 30, 2024

1/hh

shak0741.36+31.new

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:24-cv-00741-DAD-CKD Document 10 Filed 10/31/24 Page 2 of 2