Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01232/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01232-5/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 

KEVIN MOORE,

Plaintiff,

v.

PARSONS, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-1232 TLN DB

ORDER

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. Before the court is plaintiff’s renewed motion to 

appoint counsel due to his medical impairments. (ECF No. 31.) For the reasons outlined below, 

the motion is denied without prejudice. 

 On December 9, 2014, then-Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd denied without prejudice 

plaintiff’s first motion to appoint counsel. (ECF No. 10.) In that order, the court concluded that 

the lengthy, typewritten complaint stating potentially cognizable claims for relief against three 

defendants demonstrated plaintiff’s ability to clearly articulate his claims on his own behalf. (Id. 

at 6.) The court further opined that plaintiff’s cognizable Eighth Amendment claims appear to be 

relatively straight forward and that plaintiff has not represented that his complaint was prepared 

by someone other than himself and, even if it was, he does not state that the individual who 

Case 2:14-cv-01232-TLN-DB Document 49 Filed 01/19/17 Page 1 of 3
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

assisted him in drafting the complaint is now unavailable to him. (Id.) The court allowed for 

plaintiff to renew the motion at a later stage of the litigation. 

 As plaintiff has been informed, 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. 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. 

 Plaintiff’s renewed motion seeks counsel on the same grounds as his previous motion (i.e., 

due to plaintiff’s several documented medical impairments (see ECF No. 10 at 6)), plus it 

addresses some of the deficiencies pointed out by Judge Drozd in the court’s previous order. 

Despite plaintiff’s contention in the renewed motion though, the court must still deny the request. 

 The renewed motion and attached exhibits state that plaintiff’s complaint and other filings 

in this case were prepared with the substantial assistance of three fellow inmates (plaintiff’s 

“jailhouse lawyer inmates”). (ECF No. 31 at 3.) Declarations attached to plaintiff’s motion 

indicate that all three of plaintiff’s jailhouse lawyers are unable to assist him anymore. (Id.) 

Without his jailhouse lawyers, plaintiff contends that he is unable to navigate discovery issues, 

move his case forward, or acquire an expert witness that he believes is necessary for the 

prosecution of his case. (Id.) 

 Despite plaintiff’s contentions in his motion, the present circumstances appear to be the 

same as they were when Judge Drozd denied the initial motion to appoint counsel. First, while 

the renewed motion states that plaintiff no longer has any assistance in prison and does not know 

anything about expert witnesses (id.), pending before this court is plaintiff’s motion for the 

Case 2:14-cv-01232-TLN-DB Document 49 Filed 01/19/17 Page 2 of 3
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

3

appointment of an expert witness (ECF No. 38). The motion is lengthy, typewritten, and 

thoroughly researched with references to both statutory and case law. (ECF No. 38.) In addition 

to the motion for appointment of an expert witness, plaintiff has filed several discovery motions 

(two of which are currently still pending), which are also thoroughly researched. (ECF Nos. 36; 

45; 46.) Thus, the record in this case demonstrates that plaintiff either still does have the benefit 

of jailhouse lawyers or that he was able to navigate the issue sufficiently to prepare such motions. 

 Second, more recently, defendants have filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 

44.) Without the benefit of appointed counsel, plaintiff has managed to submit a thorough, 

typewritten response in opposition to the motion. (ECF No. 47.) Thus, this further evidences that 

plaintiff’s circumstances remain the same as when Judge Drozd denied his motion previously. 

Accordingly, the court must reach the same conclusion now as it did then: the motion should be 

denied without prejudice. 

 As a final note, plaintiff’s motion references correspondences that plaintiff had with a 

private attorney, Elizabeth A. Bumer. (ECF No. 31 at 4, 14.) The correspondence indicates that 

Attorney Bumer is “interested” in the case, and so plaintiff requests that the court consider her 

interest in the case in deciding the motion. (Id.) The court declines to do so. 

 For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s renewed motion 

for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 31) is denied without prejudice. 

Dated: January 18, 2017 

 

TIM-DLB:10 

DB / ORDERS / ORDERS.PRISONER.CIVIL RIGHTS / moor1232.mta

Case 2:14-cv-01232-TLN-DB Document 49 Filed 01/19/17 Page 3 of 3