Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00598/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00598-9/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

MARK A. SCOTT,

Plaintiff,

v.

DAVID CASTILLO, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:20-cv-0598 ADA GSA (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(ECF No. 57)

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this civil 

rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. The matter is at the 

pretrial stage of the proceedings.

Plaintiff has filed a motion for the appointment of counsel. ECF No. 57. For the reasons 

stated below, the motion will be denied.

I. MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

In support of Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel, he points, in part, to the 

pretrial conference and jury trial that were scheduled for December 2023 and January 2024, 

respectively. ECF No. 57 at 1. In addition, Plaintiff states that he lacks the education, 

experience, and mental ability to present a case in a jury trial. Id. The need for help with crossexamination, a lack of understanding of the rules of discovery, the complexity of this case, and 

Case 1:20-cv-00598-KES-GSA Document 58 Filed 11/27/23 Page 1 of 3
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

the lack of ready access to a law library are also reasons Plaintiff presents in support of the 

motion. See ECF No. 57 at 2.

II. APPLICABLE LAW

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 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.

III. DISCUSSION

Although Plaintiff may be able to successfully litigate this case on its merits, the motion 

will be denied for several reasons. First, the pending pretrial and trial dates have been vacated 

due to the absence of a district judge to preside over the trial proceedings. See ECF No. 55 (order 

vacating calendared trial dates). Consequently, Plaintiff has no need for assistance from an 

attorney at this time.

However, even if this matter were moving forward to trial, the motion would still be 

denied. This is because to date, Plaintiff has demonstrated that he has a satisfactory 

understanding of these proceedings. Specifically, since this matter was docketed in April 2020 

(see ECF No. 1) (complaint) Plaintiff has filed the proper paperwork when directed to do so. See

ECF Nos. 9, 16 (filed in forma pauperis application and notice on how to proceed after Court’s 

directive to do so). In addition, Plaintiff has been able to file his pretrial statement without the 

assistance of an attorney. See ECF No. 49.

Case 1:20-cv-00598-KES-GSA Document 58 Filed 11/27/23 Page 2 of 3
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

3

In sum, for the past two and a half years Plaintiff has been able to successfully manage his 

case. Therefore, in light of the Palmer considerations, at this time, the Court finds that Plaintiff 

has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances warranting the 

appointment of counsel.

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

counsel (ECF No. 57) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 27, 2023 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00598-KES-GSA Document 58 Filed 11/27/23 Page 3 of 3