Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02077/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02077-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
S. Matis
Defendant
Antonio Perez
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

ANTONIO PEREZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

S. MATIS,

Defendant.

No. 2:14-cv-2077 GEB DB P

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action in which he alleges he 

was denied access to the courts in violation of his First Amendment rights. Plaintiff has 

requested appointment of counsel on the grounds that he is unable to afford counsel, counsel 

would help with any trial, the issues in this case are complex, and plaintiff has limited law library 

access. (ECF No. 23.)

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). 

The test for exceptional circumstances requires the court to evaluate the plaintiff’s 

likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in 

Case 2:14-cv-02077-GEB-DB Document 25 Filed 09/29/16 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

light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 

1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Circumstances 

common to 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. In the present case, 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. 23) is denied.

Dated: September 28, 2016

DLB:9

DLB1/prisoner-civil rights/pere2077.31

Case 2:14-cv-02077-GEB-DB Document 25 Filed 09/29/16 Page 2 of 2