Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-03167/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-03167-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 02:437 Federal Election Commission

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTOPHER JACKSON, No. 2:11-CV-3167-TLN-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

J. WALKER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court are: (1) plaintiff’s “Motion for Clarification” (Doc.

37); and (2) plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel (Doc. 39). 

In his “Motion for Clarification,” plaintiff seeks information regarding the court’s

procedures for consent to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. Specifically, plaintiff inquires as to why

this matter is still assigned to a Magistrate Judge despite his decline to consent to Magistrate

Judge jurisdiction. Plaintiff is advised that, even though this matter has been assigned to a

District Judge for purposes of entry of final judgment pursuant to plaintiff’s election to decline

Magistrate Judge jurisdiction, this matter nonetheless remains assigned to a Magistrate Judge

pursuant to the court’s local rules for purposes of deciding non-dispositive matters as well as

making recommendations to the District Judge on dispositive matters. 

1

Case 2:11-cv-03167-TLN-CMK Document 43 Filed 03/01/16 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

Plaintiff seeks the appointment of counsel. 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 the present case, the court does not at this time find the required exceptional

circumstances. First, the legal issues involved in this case are not complex. Second, plaintiff has

demonstrated an ability to articulate this claims on his own. Finally, at this stage of the

proceedings, the court cannot say that plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims. 

Plaintiff’s motion will be denied without prejudice to renewal, at the earliest, upon appearance of

defendants in the action. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate plaintiff’s “Motion for

Clarification” (Doc. 37) as a pending motion; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel (Doc. 39) is denied

without prejudice. 

DATED: February 29, 2016

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 2:11-cv-03167-TLN-CMK Document 43 Filed 03/01/16 Page 2 of 2