Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01641/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01641-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Javaughn K. Robinson
Plaintiff
Scottini
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAVAUGHN K. ROBINSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

SCOTTINI,

Defendant.

No. 2:22-cv-1641 KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se, in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is pending. In opposition to the motion, 

defendant provided the declaration of nonparty R. Hart, an investigator with the Investigative 

Services Unit at California State Prison. Officer Hart investigated plaintiff’s Prison Rape 

Elimination Act (“PREA”) allegations against defendant and provided a declaration as to his 

review of video from both June 7, 2022, and June 8, 2022. However, defendant did not provide a 

copy of the video for the court’s review. Within fourteen days from the date of this order, 

defendant shall provide a copy of the video footage reviewed by Officer Hart. Moreover, because 

such video is highly relevant to plaintiff’s claims herein and plaintiff is entitled to view such 

video, defendant shall inform the court whether plaintiff was also provided an opportunity to view 

the video footage.

In addition, plaintiff requests that the court appoint counsel. District courts lack authority 

Case 2:22-cv-01641-DC-CSK Document 36 Filed 11/09/23 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

to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States 

Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional circumstances, the court may request an 

attorney to voluntarily represent such a plaintiff. See 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, the court must consider 

plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate the

claims pro se considering the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 

965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (district court did not abuse discretion in declining to appoint counsel). 

The burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances is on the plaintiff. Id. Circumstances 

common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not 

establish exceptional circumstances that warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. 

Having considered the factors under Palmer, the court finds that plaintiff failed to meet the

burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel at this 

time.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within fourteen days from the date of this order, defendant shall provide a copy of the 

video footage reviewed by ISU Officer R. Hart, and inform the court whether plaintiff was 

provided an opportunity to view the relevant video footage.

2. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 31) is denied without 

prejudice.

Dated: November 9, 2023

/robi1641.fb.31

Case 2:22-cv-01641-DC-CSK Document 36 Filed 11/09/23 Page 2 of 2