Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-02310/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-02310-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Isaiah Garone
Plaintiff
Gladys Mencias
Defendant

Document Text:

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

ISAIAH GARONE,

Plaintiff,

v.

GLADYS MENCIAS,

Defendant.

No. 2:22-cv-2310 DAD CSK P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a former county jail inmate proceeding pro se in an action brought under 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff 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 

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

attorney to voluntarily 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. 

///

Case 2:22-cv-02310-DAD-CSK Document 26 Filed 12/18/24 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

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 plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of 

counsel (ECF No. 23) is denied without prejudice.

Dated: December 18, 2024

/1/garo2310.31.new

Case 2:22-cv-02310-DAD-CSK Document 26 Filed 12/18/24 Page 2 of 2