Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02040/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02040-20/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 

DIRK JAONG BOUIE, JR., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

OSCAR SMITH, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:18-cv-2040 KJM AC P 

ORDER 

Plaintiff has filed another motion for the appointment of counsel. ECF No. 78. The 

United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to 

represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 

298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the district court may request the 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). 

“When determining whether ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist, a court must consider ‘the 

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) (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). The burden 

of demonstrating exceptional circumstances is on the plaintiff. Id. 

//// 

Case 2:18-cv-02040-DC-AC Document 79 Filed 07/25/23 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 

In his motion, plaintiff requests counsel on the ground he requires expert testimony to 

prove that the injuries he suffered on his knees were due to being dragged by defendants. ECF 

No. 78. Because defendants dispute plaintiff’s version of events, he argues that expert testimony 

is necessary to help resolve the credibility issue in his favor. Id. at 3. He provides a copy of a 

letter from a doctor certified in pathology that opines that plaintiff’s injuries could have been 

caused by being dragged. Id. at 6. 

With the exception of the time for filing motions to compel, which was recently extended, 

discovery in this matter is closed and the parties currently have until September 29, 2023, to file 

dispositive motions. ECF No. 68 at 6; ECF No. 77. Plaintiff seeks appointment of counsel for 

the purpose of hiring an expert to bolster the credibility of his version of events. At the summary 

judgment stage, however, the court does make credibility determinations. Rather, if defendants 

move for summary judgment the court will draw all inferences supported by the evidence in 

plaintiff’s favor. See Walls v. Cent. Contra Costa Transit Auth., 653 F.3d 963, 966 (9th Cir. 

2011). Moreover, in the event this case proceeds past the summary judgment stage—either 

because no party files a motion for summary judgment or summary judgment is denied—the 

parties will be given an opportunity to pursue expert discovery at that time. For these reasons, 

plaintiff’s request for counsel is premature and he has not shown the existence of extraordinary 

circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel and the motion will be denied at this time. 

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

counsel (ECF No. 478) is DENIED without prejudice to renewal at a later stage. 

DATED: July 24, 2023 

Case 2:18-cv-02040-DC-AC Document 79 Filed 07/25/23 Page 2 of 2