Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-00105/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-00105-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kevin Curley
Plaintiff
Raja Dutta
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 

KEVIN CURLEY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

RAJA DUTTA, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:17-cv-0105 WBS AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action, has requested 

appointment of counsel. 

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. Circumstances common to 

Case 2:17-cv-00105-WBS-AC Document 28 Filed 02/14/20 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 

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. 

Plaintiff asserts that he requires counsel because his case is complex, he is untrained in the 

law and has limited law library access, he is a recipient of mental health services, and counsel 

would be better able to present his case at trial. ECF No. 21. These circumstances are common, 

and not extraordinary. To the extent plaintiff appears to assert he suffers from a mental health 

condition that impairs his ability to represent himself, he has not explained how his condition 

prevents him proceeding without counsel. Additionally, plaintiff’s claim that he requires counsel 

at trial is premature, as it has not yet been determined whether this case will proceed to trial.1 

The court finds that plaintiff has not demonstrated the exceptional circumstances 

necessary to warrant appointment of counsel. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 

plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel, ECF No. 21, is denied. 

DATED: February 13, 2020 

 

1

 Plaintiff specifically requests that the court appoint Ken Payne and James Houk of Timberwolf 

Litigation & Research Services, LLC. Plaintiff is informed that neither individual is listed as a 

licensed attorney in the California State Bar’s online attorney directory. In any case, the court 

does not find that the appointment of counsel is appropriate at this time. 

Case 2:17-cv-00105-WBS-AC Document 28 Filed 02/14/20 Page 2 of 2