Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01503/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01503-1/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 

RYAN ODOM, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

N. FAKADI, M.D., 

Defendant. 

No. 2:13-cv-1503 KJM AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action, has requested 

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. 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). 

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 Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th 

Cir. 2009); 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 

Case 2:13-cv-01503-KJM-AC Document 26 Filed 08/07/14 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

education and limited law library access, do not establish exceptional circumstances that would 

warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. In the present case, the court does not find 

the required exceptional circumstances. 

Plaintiff has filed his second request for a sixty-day extension of time to file and serve an 

opposition to defendant’s May 1, 2014 motion for summary judgment. The motion will be 

granted but there will be no further extensions of time. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 24) is denied; and 

2. Plaintiff’s second motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 25) is granted and plaintiff 

has sixty days from the date of this order to file his opposition to defendant’s motion for summary 

judgment, after which defendant will have seven (7) days to file any reply. 

DATED: August 6, 2014 

Case 2:13-cv-01503-KJM-AC Document 26 Filed 08/07/14 Page 2 of 2