Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_25-cv-00033/USCOURTS-caed-1_25-cv-00033-0/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID M. TRAVERS,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. MACOMBER, et al.,

 Defendants.

No. 1:25-cv-00033-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(ECF No. 3)

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action filed pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the instant action on January 10, 2025, along with a motion for 

appointment of counsel. (ECF Nos. 1, 3.) 

Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel must be denied. 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. 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 

Case 1:25-cv-00033-JLT-SAB Document 9 Filed 01/13/25 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

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.

Here, contrary to Plaintiff’s contention, as stated above, he is not entitled to counsel 

simply because he is indigent. In addition, The Court has considered Plaintiff's request, but does 

not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well 

versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to 

relief, his case is not exceptional. This Court is faced with similar cases filed by prisoners who are 

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis almost daily. Many of these prisoners also have limited 

access to witnesses and discovery and are receiving mental health treatment. These litigants also 

must conduct legal research and litigate their cases without the assistance of counsel.

Furthermore, at this stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that 

Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. Plaintiff's complaint has not yet been screened to 

determine whether it states cognizable claims upon which it may proceed, and based on a review 

of the record in this case, the Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his 

claims.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 13, 2025 

STANLEY A. BOONE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:25-cv-00033-JLT-SAB Document 9 Filed 01/13/25 Page 2 of 2