Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00489/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00489-11/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 

PATRICK BRADY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SCOTT JONES, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:21-cv-0489 TLN AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a former pretrial detainee1

 proceeding pro se with a civil rights action, has 

requested appointment of counsel. ECF No. 38. In support of the motion, plaintiff states in part 

that the case is complex; that he has limited knowledge of the law; that his housing situation is 

dire, and that he is currently locked up in administrative segregation with very limited access to 

the prison law library. Id. at 1-4. 

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require 

counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 

U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the district court may request the 

voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 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). 

1

 Plaintiff was a pretrial detainee when he filed the instant action (see ECF No. 1 at 1), and is 

currently incarcerated at California State Prison – Sacramento (see ECF No. 37). 

Case 2:21-cv-00489-TLN-AC Document 39 Filed 07/20/23 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 

The test for exceptional circumstances requires the court to evaluate the plaintiff’s 

likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in 

light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 

1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Circumstances 

common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not 

establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of 

counsel. Furthermore, to date, plaintiff has filed documents in this case which indicate that he has 

a sufficient enough understanding of the issues in it to continue to manage it adequately as a pro 

se litigant. See, e.g., ECF Nos. 6, 14, 16, 26 (plaintiff’s filing of preliminary injunction motion; 

extension of time request; first amended complaint, and appeal to Ninth Circuit, respectively). 

Therefore, in the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. 

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

counsel (ECF No. 38) is DENIED. 

DATED: July 19, 2023 

Case 2:21-cv-00489-TLN-AC Document 39 Filed 07/20/23 Page 2 of 2