Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-02043/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-02043-11/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Brown
Defendant
John Havlin
Defendant
Darrell Williams
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARRELL WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN HAVLIN et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:10-cv-2043 JAM DAD P

ORDER

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

appointment of counsel. Defendant Brown has opposed the request.

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 

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 

Case 2:10-cv-02043-JAM-DB Document 71 Filed 08/05/14 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

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

counsel. 

In this case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances that warrant 

solicitation and appointment of counsel. Although this matter is proceeding to trial on October 

27, 2014, plaintiff has shown he is capable of articulating his claims without counsel. Moreover, 

plaintiff’s sole claim is that defendant Brown refused to provide him with a shot of insulin on 

June 29, 2009. Thus, the instant case does not present extraordinary legal or factual complexity. 

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

counsel (Doc. No. 69) is denied.

Dated: August 4, 2014

DAD:9

will2043.31

Case 2:10-cv-02043-JAM-DB Document 71 Filed 08/05/14 Page 2 of 2