Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-03012/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-03012-6/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

TIMOTHY SOLOMON,

Plaintiff,

v.

JONATHAN SHELDON,

Defendant.

No. 2:18-CV-3012-JAM-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. 52). 

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 2:18-cv-03012-JAM-DMC Document 53 Filed 06/16/20 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 provides no justifiable reason for the appointment of counsel. His motion 

simply states that, “[i]f possible I would really like a[] court appointed attorney to help me 

proceed in the correct way and correct timing.” ECF No. 52, pg. 1. Such a statement is 

insufficient to show exceptional circumstances. 

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

appointment of counsel (ECF No. 52) is denied.

Dated: June 15, 2020

____________________________________

DENNIS M. COTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:18-cv-03012-JAM-DMC Document 53 Filed 06/16/20 Page 2 of 2