1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JERMAINE JONES, No. 2:23-CV-1808-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 D. GONZALES, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 18

. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel. 19 See ECF No. 36. 20 The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to 21 require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. See Mallard v. United States Dist. 22 Court,

(1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the 23 voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to

(e)(1). See Terrell v. Brewer, 935

, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright,

(9th Cir. 1990). 25 A finding of “exceptional circumstances” requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success 26 on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims on his own in light of the 27 complexity of the legal issues involved. See Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017. Neither factor is 28 dispositive, and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision. See id. In Terrell, the 1 | Ninth Circuit concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion with respect to appointment 2 | of counsel because: 3 ... Terrell demonstrated sufficient writing ability and legal knowledge to articulate his claim. The facts he alleged and the issues he raised were not 4 of substantial complexity. The compelling evidence against Terrell made it 5 extremely unlikely that he would succeed on the merits.

‘ Id. at 1017.

7 In the present case, the Court does not at this time find the required exceptional 8 | circumstances. Plaintiff argues that appointment of counsel is warranted because: (1) he suffers 9 || from long-term mental health disabilities; (2) he has no legal training; and (3) he does not have 10 || access to a “law library kiosk computer” due to his placement in administrative segregation. See 11 | ECF No. 36. Plaintiffs lack of legal training is not an exceptional circumstance. As to □□□□□□□□□□□ 12 || mental health disabilities, Plaintiff has not attached any documentation to verify such disabilities, 13 || and the record reflects that Plaintiff has been able to articulate his claims adequately on his own. 14 | Additionally, the Court finds that the excessive force claims involved in this case are neither 15 || legally nor factually complex. Finally, Plaintiff has not established any particular likelihood of 16 || success on the merits. 17 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for the 18 || appointment of counsel, ECF No. 36, is denied. 19 20 | Dated: August 15, 2025 Co 21 DENNIS M. COTA 02 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28