Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02369/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02369-3/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

KRZYSZTOF F. WOLINSKI,

Plaintiff,

v.

GURSHARN GILL, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:19-cv-2369 WBS DB P

ORDER

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

appointment of counsel and an extension of time to file objections to this court’s February 20, 

2020 findings and recommendations. 

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 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 

Case 2:19-cv-02369-WBS-DB Document 18 Filed 03/11/20 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

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

counsel. As set out in the court’s February 20, 2020 findings and recommendations, plaintiff 

appears to be trying to raise the same claim in this case that he raised previously in another case 

in this court. Because plaintiff cannot pursue the same claim in two different cases, this court has 

recommended that the present case be dismissed. Based on that finding and recommendation, 

appointment of counsel is not appropriate. 

Plaintiff has also requested an extension of time to file objections to the February 20, 

2020, findings and recommendations. Good cause appearing it shall be granted. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 14) is denied;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 15) is granted; and

3. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to file objections to 

the findings and recommendations.

DATED: March 10, 2020

/s/ DEBORAH BARNES

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DLB:9

DB/prisoner-civil rights/woli2369.31+36obj

Case 2:19-cv-02369-WBS-DB Document 18 Filed 03/11/20 Page 2 of 2