district court did not abuse discretion in declining to appoint counsel
How later courts described this case
- district court did not abuse discretion in declining to appoint counsel
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 RONNIE CHEROKEE BROWN, Case No. 2:25-cv-1353-DC-JDP (P)
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER
14 M. SINGH, et al.,
15 Defendants.
16
17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
18 Plaintiff requests that the court appoint counsel. District courts lack authority to require counsel
19 to represent indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490
20 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional circumstances, the court may request an attorney to
21 voluntarily represent such a plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d
22 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990).
23 When determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court must consider plaintiff’s
24 likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro
25 se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970
26 (9th Cir. 2009) (district court did not abuse discretion in declining to appoint counsel). The
27 burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances is on the plaintiff. Id. Circumstances
28 common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not
1 | establish exceptional circumstances that warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel.
2 Having considered the factors under Palmer, the court finds that plaintiff has failed to
3 | meet his burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of
4 | counsel at this time.
5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motions for the appointment of
6 | counsel, ECF Nos. 17 & 19, are DENIED without prejudice.
7 | IT IS SO ORDERED.
9 | Dated: _ October 2, 2025 __ yuan Ws Se
JEREMY D. PETERSON
10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28