(PC) Price v. Soriano-Figueroa et al

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
KEITH LAMONT PRICE,
Plaintiff,
v.
M. SORIANO-FIGUEROA, et al.,
Defendants.
No. 2:25-cv-2055 CSK P
ORDER
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding 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 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 as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not

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
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 motion for the appointment of
counsel (ECF No. 21) is denied without prejudice.
Dated: February 3, 2026
pric2055.31.new/2