Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02040/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02040-7/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 

DIRK JA’ONG BOUIE, JR., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

OSCAR SMITH, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:18-cv-2040 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). 

“When determining whether ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist, a court must consider ‘the 

likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims 

pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 

970 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). The burden 

of demonstrating exceptional circumstances is on the plaintiff. Id. Circumstances common to 

Case 2:18-cv-02040-DC-AC Document 31 Filed 02/03/21 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 

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. 

Plaintiff requests counsel on the grounds that his case has some chance of success on the 

merits, he suffers from visual impairment, he receives mental health care, the issues in his case 

are complex, and he will require assistance at trial and with witnesses and investigation. ECF No. 

30 at 3-6. The conditions plaintiff complains of are common to most prisoners and therefore fail 

to establish the necessary extraordinary circumstances to warrant appointment of counsel. 

Plaintiff has also, up to this point, demonstrated the ability to articulate his claims without 

assistance. Furthermore, to the extent plaintiff bases his request on a need for counsel at trial, the 

request is premature because it has not yet been determined that this case will proceed to trial, and 

although plaintiff has sufficiently stated a claim to make it past the screening stage, the court is 

unable to assess his likelihood of success at this early stage. Finally, the fact that plaintiff suffers 

from mental health conditions is not enough to establish exceptional circumstances warranting 

appointment of counsel. If plaintiff chooses to file another motion for appointment of counsel, he 

should identify what conditions he suffers from, explain how his conditions prevent him from 

proceeding without assistance, and provide medical documentation supporting his claimed 

impairments and their effect on his functioning. 

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

counsel, ECF No. 30, is DENIED. 

DATED: February 2, 2021 

Case 2:18-cv-02040-DC-AC Document 31 Filed 02/03/21 Page 2 of 2