Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01192/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01192-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Donnie Lucky Cantrell
Plaintiff
S. Tyson
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONNIE LUCKY CANTRELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

S. TYSON,

Defendant.

No. 2:19-CV-1192-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. 15). 

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 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 Terrell, the 

Case 2:19-cv-01192-TLN-DMC Document 17 Filed 02/13/20 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

Ninth Circuit concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion with respect to appointment 

of counsel because: 

. . . Terrell demonstrated sufficient writing ability and legal knowledge to 

articulate his claim. The facts he alleged and the issues he raised were not 

of substantial complexity. The compelling evidence against Terrell made it 

extremely unlikely that he would succeed on the merits. 

Id. at 1017. 

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

circumstances. Plaintiff states that the appointment of counsel is warranted because he is 

indigent, the issues involved in the case are complex, and plaintiff is incarcerated with limited law 

library access. See ECF No. 15, pg. 1. The court finds these circumstances to be the norm for 

prisoner litigants and not “exceptional.” Further, contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the factual 

and legal issues involved in resolving plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment safety claims against 

defendants are not complex. Next, a review of the docket reflects that plaintiff has been able to 

articulate his claims on his own. Specifically, plaintiff’s complaint has been found appropriate 

for service and defendants have answered. Finally, at this early stage of the proceedings, the 

court cannot say that plaintiff has demonstrated any likelihood he will prevail on the merits. 

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

appointment of counsel (ECF No. 15) is denied.

Dated: February 13, 2020

____________________________________

DENNIS M. COTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:19-cv-01192-TLN-DMC Document 17 Filed 02/13/20 Page 2 of 2