Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01799/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01799-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rodney J. Beede
Defendant
Jeremy Jamison
Plaintiff

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEREMY JAMISON, No. 2:14-CV-1799-WBS-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

RODNEY J. BEEDE,

Defendant.

 /

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court are plaintiff’s motions (Docs. 11, 12, and 13) for the

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. See Mallard v. United States

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

request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See Terrell v.

Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36

(9th Cir. 1990). A finding of “exceptional circumstances” requires an evaluation of both the

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

1

Case 2:14-cv-01799-WBS-CMK Document 15 Filed 01/14/16 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

own in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017. 

Neither factor is dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision. See

id. 

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

circumstances. First, plaintiff has demonstrated an adequate ability to articulate his claim. 

Second, for the reasons discussed in findings and recommendations issued separately, the court

concludes that plaintiff has no chance of success on the merits because his claim is not

cognizable. 

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

appointment of counsel (Docs. 11, 12, and 13) are denied.

DATED: January 13, 2016

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 2:14-cv-01799-WBS-CMK Document 15 Filed 01/14/16 Page 2 of 2