Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-02380/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-02380-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Fairfield City Police Department
Defendant
Lawrence P. Hayes
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

27

28

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAWRENCE P. HAYES,

Plaintiff,

v.

FAIRFIELD CITY POLICE 

DEPARTMENT,

Defendant.

No. 2:23-CV-2380-DMC-P

ORDER

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

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel, 

ECF No. 18. 

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 district 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). The test for “exceptional circumstances” requires the Court to evaluate the 

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

on his own in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 

Case 2:23-cv-02380-DMC Document 19 Filed 12/05/24 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

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. 

In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. 

Plaintiff states that he requires the assistance of counsel because he lacks legal expertise, is 

indigent, and is diagnosed with schizophrenia. See ECF No. 18, pg. 1-3. Plaintiff contends that 

his lack of legal expertise has resulted in “major mistakes,” requiring an amended complaint, and 

that the case will rely on eliciting expert testimony, which the Plaintiff does not have the skills to 

perform. See id. The Court finds that these factors represent common circumstances among 

inmates pursuing litigation in federal court. Indeed, filing amended complaints is often part of the 

legal process, whether a plaintiff is represented or not. Here, Plaintiff has plainly demonstrated 

with his filings that he is able to articulate his claims on his own. Plaintiff does not show that his 

mental health diagnosis impacts his ability to articulate these claims. Further, at the current stage 

of the proceedings before an answer has been filed or any discovery conducted, Plaintiff has not 

shown any particular likelihood of success on the merits. Finally, the Court does not find that the 

issues in this case are likely to involve a factually or legally complex trial.

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

appointment of counsel, ECF No. 18, is denied.

Dated: December 4, 2024

____________________________________

DENNIS M. COTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-02380-DMC Document 19 Filed 12/05/24 Page 2 of 2