Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01248/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01248-6/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 

HILLIARD WILLIAMS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JAROM A. DASZKO, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-1248 KJM AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights 

action against two defendant physicians on claims that they were deliberately indifferent to 

plaintiff’s serious medical needs. Presently pending is plaintiff’s first request for appointment of 

counsel, which includes several exhibits demonstrating that plaintiff has been unable to obtain the 

voluntary assistance of counsel based on his own efforts. See ECF No. 43. 

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). 

The test for exceptional circumstances requires the court to evaluate the plaintiff’s 

likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in 

Case 2:14-cv-01248-AC Document 48 Filed 04/04/16 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

light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 

1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Circumstances 

common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not 

establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of 

counsel. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). 

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

time. Although this court’s review of this case indicates that plaintiff has a reasonable 

opportunity of prevailing on the merits of his claims, plaintiff has, to date, adequately 

demonstrated the ability to articulate his claims pro se. To prevail on his Eighth Amendment 

claims, plaintiff must present evidence demonstrating that defendants were aware of plaintiff’s 

need for pain medication while recovering from his burn injuries but denied such relief. To 

prevail on a claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, a prisoner must 

demonstrate that a prison official “kn[ew] of and disregard [ed] an excessive risk to inmate health 

or safety; the official must both be aware of the facts from which the inference could be drawn 

that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.” Farmer v. 

Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). 

With this standard in mind, plaintiff should identify additional evidence that would 

support his claims, and formulate his discovery requests accordingly.1 

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

appointment of counsel, ECF No. 43, is denied without prejudice. 

DATED: April 4, 2016 

 

1

 Plaintiff’s discovery requests may include the following: (1) requests for admission (yes-or-no 

statements of fact) directed to each defendant, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 36; (2) up to twenty-five 

interrogatories (questions) directed to each defendant, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 33; and (3) requests for 

copies of documents, electronically stored information, or other tangible evidence directed to 

each defendant, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. 

Case 2:14-cv-01248-AC Document 48 Filed 04/04/16 Page 2 of 2