1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT EPPS, No. 2:23-cv-00135-DAD-EFB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 ARCHIE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is confined in Atascadero State Hospital and proceeds without counsel in an 18 action brought under

concerning events that occurred while he was incarcerated 19 at California State Prison, Sacramento (“CSP-Sac”). He has paid the filing fee. He has filed a 20 “request to add Doe defendant” (ECF No. 74) and a motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 21 76). 22 Plaintiff’s request to add a Doe defendant does not describe the Doe defendant or why this 23 individual should be added to the action. Instead, the body of the filing appears to be a request 24 that the court reconsider ordering the appointment of counsel. 25 Plaintiff asks the court to appoint counsel due to his medical issues (traumatic brain injury 26 and mental illness). Plaintiff states that he has trouble concentrating and organizing his thoughts. 27 District courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. 28 Mallard v. United States Dist. Court,

(1989). In exceptional circumstances, 1 || the court may request an attorney to voluntarily to represent such a plaintiff. See

| 1915(e)(1); Terrell v. Brewer,

(9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 3 || F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). When determining whether “exceptional circumstances” 4 || exist, the court must consider the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the 5 || plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. 6 || Palmer v. Valdez,

(9th Cir. 2009). 7 Here, the record does not currently show exceptional circumstances as is required to 8 | appoint counsel. It is too early in the case to evaluate plaintiff's likelihood of success on the 9 || merits. Thus far, plaintiff has successfully his claims, which are based on established law that is 10 || not particularly complex. A request for counsel based on disability “essentially makes the same 11 || argument that every pro se inmate can make—namely, that an attorney could or would handle the 12 || case better than he can.” Hoang Minh Tranh v. Gore,

, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 13 | 2013). Although a lawyer is helpful to any litigant, to obtain appointment of counsel plaintiff 14 | “must show that because of the complexity of the claims he was unable to articulate his 15 || positions.” Rand v. Rowland,

(9th Cir. 1997), aff'd en banc in relevant part, 16 |

, 954 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998). “The resources available to the court to appoint counsel to 17 || represent prisoners proceeding pro se are very limited.” Parker v. Lynch, No. 2:23-cv-0754 DC 18 | CSKP,

, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2025). Because plaintiff has 19 | not shown that he is unable to articulate his positions in this litigation, he has not demonstrated 20 || exceptional circumstances. 21 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 22 1. Plaintiffs request to add Doe defendant (ECF No. 74) is DENIED; 23 2. Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 76) is DENIED. 24 || Dated: September 12, 2025

26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRECTE JUDGE 27 28