Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02302/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02302-10/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

CLARENCE ROBERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

SGT. SINGH, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-2302 WBS KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding in forma pauperis and without counsel. In this 

action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff claims that on August 31, 2014, while he was 

housed at the California Health Care Facility, defendants Singh and Cotter used excessive force 

on plaintiff, and the remaining defendants failed to take steps to prevent or stop them. Plaintiff 

requests that the court appoint counsel. Plaintiff states that he suffers from depression, hearing 

voices, and has poor impulse control, and is being evaluated for suicidal ideation. On October 20, 

2015, the undersigned held a further settlement conference with both parties, but the case did not 

settle. 

District courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 

1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional 

circumstances, the court may request an attorney to voluntarily represent such a plaintiff. See 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. 

Case 2:14-cv-02302-WBS-KJN Document 54 Filed 10/22/15 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

Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). When determining whether “exceptional 

circumstances” exist, the court must consider plaintiff’s 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) (district court did not 

abuse discretion in declining to appoint counsel). The burden of demonstrating exceptional 

circumstances is on the plaintiff. Id. Circumstances common to most prisoners, such as lack of 

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

warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. 

The undersigned has reviewed the record and considered the factors under Palmer, and 

finds that plaintiff has not met his burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances warranting 

the appointment of counsel at this time.

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

counsel (ECF No. 47) is denied without prejudice.

Dated: October 22, 2015

robe2302.31.kjn(3)

Case 2:14-cv-02302-WBS-KJN Document 54 Filed 10/22/15 Page 2 of 2