Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-00635/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-00635-8/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
California Health Care Facility
Defendant
Howard Scott
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

HOWARD SCOTT,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA HEALTH CARE 

FACILITY,

Defendant.

No. 2:18-cv-0635 TLN CKD P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se. On August 29, 2018, this action was 

stayed so that plaintiff could locate certain documents and retain counsel. Plaintiff now asks 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 

/////

Case 2:18-cv-00635-TLN-CKD Document 26 Filed 02/26/20 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

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. 

Alternatively, plaintiff asks that the stay imposed in this action remain in place another 

120 days while plaintiff attempts to compose an amended complaint. Good cause appearing, that 

request will be granted.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 25) is denied.

2. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 25) is granted.

3. The stay imposed in this action remains in place.

4. If plaintiff is not ready to submit an amended complaint by July 1, 2020, plaintiff shall 

file a status report. 

Dated: February 26, 2020

1/bh

scot0635.31+36(2)

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:18-cv-00635-TLN-CKD Document 26 Filed 02/26/20 Page 2 of 2