Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01238/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01238-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
A. Mendenhall
Defendant
Justin Jay Wise
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 

JUSTIN JAY WISE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

A. MENDENHALL, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:15-cv-1238 TLN AC P 

ORDER 

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

appointment of counsel. ECF No. 21. 

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). 

“When determining whether ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist, a court must consider ‘the 

likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims 

pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 

970 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). The burden 

of demonstrating exceptional circumstances is on the plaintiff. Id. Circumstances common to 

Case 2:15-cv-01238-TLN-AC Document 22 Filed 08/08/16 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

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. 

Plaintiff requests appointment of counsel for the purposes of completing discovery on the 

grounds that “discovery will be complex and counsel would better enable plaintiff to present 

evidence.” ECF No. 21. At this stage of the case, the court is unable to make a determination as 

to the likelihood of plaintiff’s success on the merits and there is no evidence that plaintiff has 

attempted and been unable to conduct discovery without assistance. While it is likely that 

appointment of counsel would “better enable plaintiff to present evidence,” this is true for any pro 

se plaintiff and is not an exceptional circumstance. For these reasons, 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. 21) is denied. 

DATED: August 5, 2016 

Case 2:15-cv-01238-TLN-AC Document 22 Filed 08/08/16 Page 2 of 2