Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02211/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02211-2/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN M. HALL, No. 2:13-CV-2211-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

ANTHONY GRAMMATICO, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff seeks the 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. 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

1

Case 2:13-cv-02211-KJM-CMK Document 26 Filed 03/16/15 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

issues involved. See Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017. Neither factor is dispositive and both must be

viewed together before reaching a decision. See id. 

In the present case, the court does not at this time find the required exceptional

circumstances. As discussed in more detail in the accompanying order, plaintiff’s first amended

complaint is sufficiently articulate that it appears to state claims upon which relief can be

granted. Moreover, while plaintiff’s amended complaint appears to state a claim, the court

cannot say at this juncture of the litigation that it is likely that plaintiff will prevail on the merits. 

Finally, the legal issues presented in this case are not complex. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s requests for the

appointment of counsel (Docs. 16 and 24) are denied.

DATED: March 16, 2015

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 2:13-cv-02211-KJM-CMK Document 26 Filed 03/16/15 Page 2 of 2