Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01433/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01433-8/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

ANTHONY L. DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

V. ESCARCEGA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:22-CV-1433-KJM-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 motion for the appointment of counsel, 

ECF No. 28. 

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 2:22-cv-01433-DC-DMC Document 29 Filed 09/01/23 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

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 contends the appointment of counsel is warranted because he has limited 

access to the prison law library and materials such as paper, pens, and envelopes. Plaintiff also 

states that he is untrained in the law. Finally, Plaintiff states that appointment of counsel will 

facilitate investigation and prosecution of his case. 

As with most inmates pursuing litigation in federal court, these represent typical 

and not exceptional circumstances. A review of Plaintiff’s filings to date reflects that he is able to 

sufficiently articulate his claims and arguments on his own. Further, the Court cannot say at this 

stage of the proceedings prior to completion of discovery and consideration of any dispositive 

motions that Plaintiff has established any particular likelihood of success on the merits. Finally, 

the issues involved in this case are not overly complex factually or legally. 

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

appointment of counsel, ECF No. 28, is denied.

Dated: September 1, 2023

____________________________________

DENNIS M. COTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:22-cv-01433-DC-DMC Document 29 Filed 09/01/23 Page 2 of 2