Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00070/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00070-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Anthony David Richards
Plaintiff
Benjamin Smith
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

ANTHONY DAVID RICHARDS,

Plaintiff,

v.

BENJAMIN SMITH,

Defendant.

No. 2:23-CV-0070-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 are Plaintiff’s motions for the appointment of 

counsel, ECF Nos. 30 and 32. Both motions were filed after a stay of proceedings was imposed 

on February 28, 2024, pending completion of a settlement conference. 

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 

Case 2:23-cv-00070-DMC Document 36 Filed 05/14/24 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

dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision. See id. In Terrell, the 

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 argues that counsel is warranted as he is incarcerated and indigent. See

ECF No. 30 pg. 2. Plaintiff further argues that that the settlement conferences in this case involve 

complex issues of law and/or fact. See ECF No. 32 pg. 1. Indigence and incarceration are 

common among inmates pursuing litigation in federal court. Further, the Court does not find that 

the issues in this excessive force case at the settlement conference are likely to be factually or 

legally complex. At this early stage of the proceedings, before any discovery has been conducted, 

the Court cannot say that Plaintiff has established any particular likelihood of success on the 

merits. Finally, a review of the docket reflects that Plaintiff has to date been able to present his 

claims on his own without the assistance of counsel.

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

appointment of counsel, ECF Nos. 30 and 32 are denied.

Dated: May 14, 2024

____________________________________

DENNIS M. COTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-00070-DMC Document 36 Filed 05/14/24 Page 2 of 2