Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-01068/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-01068-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
California State Prison Sacramento
Defendant
David Nathaniel Roberts
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID NATHANIEL ROBERTS,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON 

SACRAMENTO,

Defendant.

No. 2:20-CV-1068-TLN-DMC-P

ORDER

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel 

(ECF No. 4). 

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to 

require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. See Mallard v. United States Dist. 

Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the 

voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 

F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). 

A finding of “exceptional circumstances” requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success 

on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims on his own in light of the 

complexity of the legal issues involved. See Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017. Neither factor is 

Case 2:20-cv-01068-TLN-DMC Document 12 Filed 06/16/20 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

dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision. See id. In Terrell, the 

Ninth Circuit concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion with respect to appointment 

of counsel because: 

. . . Terrell demonstrated sufficient writing ability and legal knowledge to 

articulate his claim. The facts he alleged and the issues he raised were not 

of substantial complexity. The compelling evidence against Terrell made 

it extremely unlikely that he would succeed on the merits. 

Id. at 1017. 

In the present case, the Court does not at this time find the required exceptional 

circumstances. Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel is simply a boilerplate power of attorney 

form which seeks to appoint the Court as plaintiff’s attorney. See ECF No. 4. Plaintiff does not 

present facts which articulate “exceptional circumstances” justifying court appointment of 

counsel at this time. 

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

appointment of counsel (ECF No. 4) is denied.

Dated: June 15, 2020

____________________________________

DENNIS M. COTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:20-cv-01068-TLN-DMC Document 12 Filed 06/16/20 Page 2 of 2