Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00738/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00738-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Abdul Rahman
Defendant
Darrell Smith
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARRELL SMITH,

Plaintiff, No. 2:13-cv-0738 KJN P

vs.

ABDUL RAHMAN,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel or “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 to 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

1

Case 2:13-cv-00738-MCE-KJN Document 5 Filed 04/22/13 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

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 has

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 April 15, 2013 motion

for the appointment of counsel (dkt. no. 2) is denied without prejudice.

DATED: April 19, 2013

_____________________________________

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

smit0738.31.kjn

2

Case 2:13-cv-00738-MCE-KJN Document 5 Filed 04/22/13 Page 2 of 2