Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00978/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00978-3/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERICK LATON STEWART, SR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. DE LA CRUZ and J, MIRAMONTES,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-00978-JLT-HBK(PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

(Doc. No. 29)

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel filed December 

29, 2023. (Doc. No. 29). Plaintiff, a prisoner, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis on his 

civil rights complaint alleging an Eight Amendment excessive use of force claim against 

Defendants. (Doc. Nos. 1, 4). Plaintiff seeks appointment counsel because he “is a greenhorn at 

law” and has been diagnosed by correctional officials “as an inmate requiring a level of mental 

health care that necessitates prison officials to communicate with Plaintiff in a slowly spoken 

mode to assure that Plaintiff understands what is being conveyed to him.” (Doc. No. 29 at 2). 

Additionally, Plaintiff has had the assistance of other inmates to help him with this litigation, but

either he or the inmates who previously assisted him have been transferred. (Id.). 

At the outset, the United States Constitution does not require appointment of counsel in 

civil cases. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354 (1996) (explaining Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 

817 (1996), did not create a right to appointment of counsel in civil cases). Under 28 U.S.C. § 

Case 1:20-cv-00978-HBK Document 30 Filed 01/22/24 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

1915, this court has discretionary authority to appoint counsel for an indigent to commence, 

prosecute, or defend a civil action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (stating the court has authority to 

appoint counsel for people unable to afford counsel); see also United States v. McQuade, 519 

F.2d 1180 (9th Cir. 1978) (addressing relevant standard of review for motions to appoint counsel 

in civil cases) (other citations omitted). The Court grants motions to appoint counsel in civil 

cases only in “exceptional circumstances.” Id. at 1181. Factors the court considers when 

determining if exceptional circumstances warrant appointment of counsel are many and include, 

inter alia, proof of indigence, the likelihood of success on the merits, and the ability of the 

plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se considering the complexity of the legal issues involved. 

Id.; see also Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other 

grounds on reh’g en banc, 154 F.2d 952 (9th Cir. 1998). 

Plaintiff has not met his “burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances.” Jones v. 

Chen, 2014 WL 12684497, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2014). Plaintiff’s claim that he lacks legal 

skills or suffers from low cognitive functioning “are typical of almost every pro se prisoner civil

rights plaintiff and alone” are insufficient to satisfy the “exceptional circumstances” standard 

required to justify appointment of counsel. Torres v. Jorrin, 2020 WL 5909529, at *1 (S.D. Cal. 

Oct. 6, 2020)(quoting Thompson v. Paramo, No. 16CV951-MMA (BGS), 2018 WL 4357993, at 

*1 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2018)); see also Jones v. Kuppinger, 2015 WL 5522290, at *3-4 (E.D. 

Cal. Sept. 17, 2015) (“Circumstances common to most prisoners, such as a deficient general 

education, lack of knowledge of the law, mental illness and disability, do not in themselves 

establish exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of voluntary civil counsel.”). Nor 

does Plaintiff submit evidence to demonstrate a nexus between his alleged intellectual or mental 

impairments and an inability to articulate his claim or litigate this case. West v. Dizon, No. 2014 

WL 114659, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2014) (denying appointment of counsel when Plaintiff 

submitted no evidence of mental disability as to the “nature or effects” of the disability). 

Further, the fact that Plaintiff utilized the assistance of other inmates to litigate this case 

does not constitute exceptional circumstances. See Montano v. Solomon, 2010 WL 4137476, at *7

(E.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2010) (denying appointment of counsel finding no exceptional circumstance where 

Case 1:20-cv-00978-HBK Document 30 Filed 01/22/24 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

“plaintiff has adequately presented, albeit through another inmate, the salient factual allegations of 

this case ... as well as the matters now before the court”). Indeed, despite the transfer of the inmates 

who have assisted Plaintiff in the past, Plaintiff does not allege that correctional officials are 

preventing him from seeking legal assistance from new inmates. And contrary to Plaintiff’s 

assertion, the Court does not find that the issues are “so complex that due process violations will 

occur absent the presence of counsel.” Bonin v. Vasquez, 999 F.2d 425, 428–29 (9th Cir. 1993). 

Thus, the Court finds Plaintiff has shown an ability to adequately articulate his claim pro se. 

Furthermore, the Court recently entered a Discovery and Scheduling Order on October 11, 

2023. (Doc. No. 28). Consequently, this case procedurally is at the earlier stages of litigation, so 

it is difficult for the Court to determine Plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits. Wilborn v.

Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); see also Reed v. Paramo, 2020 WL 2767358, at 

*1 (S.D. Cal. May 28, 2020) (holding it was too early to determine plaintiff's likelihood of 

success on the merits because fact discovery had not been completed). 

Because Plaintiff fails to establish the requisite “exceptional circumstances,” the Court 

finds it is not in the interest of justice to appoint counsel at this time.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 29) is DENIED.

Dated: January 22, 2024 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00978-HBK Document 30 Filed 01/22/24 Page 3 of 3