Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00938/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00938-5/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

ARMANDO HERRERA,

Plaintiff,

v.

CANDIA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:16-cv-0938 GEB KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a prison inmate, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, with a civil rights 

action. Plaintiff has now twice renewed his motion for appointment of counsel. (ECF Nos. 18, 

25.) Plaintiff's first request was denied on July 11, 2016. 

The undersigned has not yet screened the complaint because plaintiff has failed to file a 

complete in forma pauperis application or pay the required filing fee. After being granted 

multiple extensions of time in which to submit his signed and completed application to proceed in 

forma pauperis, plaintiff was informed of the court’s new procedure to obtain the required 

financial information from the prison, and provided the revised application form, and additional 

time to submit the signed revised application on or before September 30, 2016. (ECF No. 22.) 

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 

Case 2:16-cv-00938-GEB-KJN Document 26 Filed 09/06/16 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

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 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.

At this stage of the proceedings, the court is unable to determine plaintiff’s likelihood of 

success on the merits. 

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. Moreover, this action cannot proceed until plaintiff either files the 

completed application to proceed in forma pauperis or pays the filing fee. As warned in the 

court’s prior orders, plaintiff is cautioned that failure to submit the signed application to proceed 

in forma pauperis on or before September 30, 2016, will result in a recommendation that this 

action be dismissed. 

In light of those orders, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motions (ECF Nos. 

18, 25) are denied without prejudice.

Dated: September 6, 2016

/herr0938.31sec

Case 2:16-cv-00938-GEB-KJN Document 26 Filed 09/06/16 Page 2 of 2