Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-02564/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-02564-7/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

GARY LASHER,

Plaintiff, No. 2:11-cv-2564 WBS KJN P

vs.

R. MIRANDA, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, in an action brought

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 26, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to

file and serve an opposition to defendants’ November 19, 2012 motion for summary judgment. 

This filing was signed by plaintiff on December 7, 2012. However, on December 18, 2012,

plaintiff’s “objection” to defendants’ motion for summary judgment was filed. This document

was also signed by plaintiff on December 7, 2012. 

Pro se prisoner filings are dated from the date the prisoner delivers it to prison

authorities. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 275-76 (1988). Thus, plaintiff’s December 18, 2012

filing is timely, and no extension of time is required. 

Plaintiff also requests that the court appoint counsel. District courts lack authority

to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States

1

Case 2:11-cv-02564-JAM-KJN Document 58 Filed 01/09/13 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

Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional circumstances, the court may request an

attorney to voluntarily to 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 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. 

Having considered the factors under Palmer, the court finds that plaintiff has

failed to meet his burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances warranting the

appointment of counsel at this time. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (dkt. no. 57) is denied as moot; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel (dkt. no. 55) is denied

without prejudice.

DATED: January 8, 2013

_____________________________________

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

lash2564.36

2

Case 2:11-cv-02564-JAM-KJN Document 58 Filed 01/09/13 Page 2 of 2