Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02753/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02753-16/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AMOS RYLES,

Plaintiff,

vs.

T. FELKER, et al.,

Defendants. 

________________________________/

2:07-cv-02753-RCT

ORDER

Plaintiff Ryles has requested the appointment of counsel in this case (#32). The motion

was filed November 20, 2009. The Court intended to enter this order at that time, but failed to

do so due to a clerical error. 

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack the authority to

require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. U.S. District Court,

490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, a court may request 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). In the

present case, the Court does not find that the required exceptional circumstances exist.

"A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of

success on the merits and the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the

complexity of the legal issues involved. Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be

viewed together before reaching a decision." Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017 (quoting Wilborn v.

Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Plaintiff

has demonstrated sufficient writing ability in his complaint and sufficient legal knowledge in his

multiple motions to the court to articulate his claim. See id. The facts alleged and the issues

raised are not particularly complex. See id. Plaintiff contends that while he was an inmate in a

Case 2:07-cv-02753-RCT Document 48 Filed 07/13/10 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-

California prison, a correctional officer, Defendant Patton, threatened his life and assaulted him.

No specialized legal knowledge is necessary to argue such a claim; nor is the claim

exceptional in any way. Plaintiff argues in his motion that there may be conflicting testimony in

this case, however, that does not make the case exceptional. See Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331 ("If

all that was required to establish successfully the complexity of the relevant issues was a

demonstration of the need for development of further facts, practically all cases would involve

complex legal issues."). Finally, Plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the

merits. See id.

Considering the large volume of § 1983 actions pending in the Eastern District of

California, the Court must be careful not to overburden those attorneys who volunteer to

represent indigent prisoners with cases that do not meet the exceptional circumstances

requirement. Plaintiff's request for the appointment of counsel is DENIED nunc pro tunc.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 12th day of July, 2010.

/s/ Richard C. Tallman 

UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

Sitting by designation

Case 2:07-cv-02753-RCT Document 48 Filed 07/13/10 Page 2 of 2