Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02506/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02506-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Horowitz
Defendant
Richard Peacock
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 

RICHARD PEACOCK, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

HOROWITZ, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-2506 TLN AC P 

ORDER 

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

appointment of counsel. ECF No. 29. 

Plaintiff appears to be under the impression that this case is currently set to proceed to 

trial. Id. He requests a trial date and appointment of counsel and states that he is “trying to get 

this as soon as possible, so if this court denie[s] plaintiff a [sic] counsel, plaintiff has alot [sic] to 

do, to prepare for trial.” Id. Plaintiff’s requests for a trial date and counsel to assist with trial are 

premature. Neither the discovery deadline nor the dispositive motions deadline has expired. ECF 

No. 26 at 5. This court previously advised that a trial date “will be set, as appropriate, following 

adjudication of any dispositive motion, or the expiration of time for filing such a motion.” Id. In 

other words, it will not be known whether this case will proceed to trial until after dispositive 

motions have been ruled on or the parties fail to file dispositive motions. 

As a more general matter, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts 

Case 2:13-cv-02506-TLN-AC Document 30 Filed 07/16/15 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

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 

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. 

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

counsel (ECF No. 29) is denied. 

DATED: July 16, 2015 

Case 2:13-cv-02506-TLN-AC Document 30 Filed 07/16/15 Page 2 of 2