Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-00105/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-00105-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kevin Curley
Plaintiff
Raja Dutta
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 

KEVIN CURLEY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

RAJA DUTTA, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:17-cv-0105 WBS AC P 

ORDER 

Plaintiff has requested the appointment of counsel. 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 

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

Case 2:17-cv-00105-WBS-AC Document 38 Filed 03/31/20 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 

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

Plaintiff seeks appointment of counsel on the grounds that his imprisonment will greatly 

limit his ability to litigate, the issues are complex and will require significant research and 

investigation, he has limited law library access and knowledge of the law, and an attorney would 

be better able to present evidence and cross examine witnesses. ECF No. 37 at 1-2. Plaintiff has 

previously been advised that these circumstances are common to most prisoners and therefore do 

not warrant the appointment of counsel. ECF No. 28 at 2. Furthermore, it has not yet been 

determined that this case will go to trial, so any request for counsel based upon trial needs is 

premature. Finally, although plaintiff also alleges that the prison he is housed at is under 

lockdown and running on a modified program due to the coronavirus, further limiting his law 

library access, this situation is currently common to most prisoners. Additionally, it is not clear 

that requests for extensions of time, as needed, would be unable to address the delays plaintiff is 

experiencing in his access to the law library without the need to appoint counsel. 

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

counsel, ECF No. 37, is denied. 

DATED: March 31, 2020 

Case 2:17-cv-00105-WBS-AC Document 38 Filed 03/31/20 Page 2 of 2