Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-03045/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-03045-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Arya
Defendant
Lamont Crossley
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

LAMONT CROSSLEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. ARYA,

Defendant.

No. 2:23-cv-3045 DJC CSK P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff requests that the court appoint counsel. District courts lack authority 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 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) (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. 

Case 2:23-cv-03045-DJC-CSK Document 20 Filed 05/29/24 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

In the pending motion, plaintiff alleges that his handwriting hand is broken as a result of 

an assault occurring on May 11, 2024. (ECF No. 19 at 2.) Plaintiff alleges that he will have 

surgery on his hand which may impact his ability to litigate this action for approximately three 

months. (Id.) This Court is sympathetic to plaintiff’s hand injury. However, at this time, this 

Court does not find that plaintiff’s hand injury warrants appointment of counsel. No scheduling 

order has been issued in this action. If plaintiff is unable to prosecute this action due to his hand 

injury, he shall notify the Court. 

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

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

this time.

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

counsel (ECF No. 19) is denied without prejudice.

Dated: May 29, 2024

cros3045.31

2

Case 2:23-cv-03045-DJC-CSK Document 20 Filed 05/29/24 Page 2 of 2