United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, 2025

Gabriel Antonio Evans v. El Dorado County Sheriff, et al.

Gabriel Antonio Evans v. El Dorado County Sheriff, et al.
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · Decided December 30, 2025
Gabriel Antonio Evans v. El Dorado County Sheriff, et al.

Trial Court Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA GABRIEL ANTONIO EVANS, No. 2:25-cv-3408 AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER EL DORADO COUNTY SHERIFF, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff has requested the appointment of counsel. ECF No. 9. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the district court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 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).

23 “When determining whether ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist, a court must consider ‘the 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) (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). 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 establish | exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel.

2 Plaintiff requests appointment of counsel on the grounds that he is indigent and “need[s] || as attorney to represent [him].” ECF No. 9. However, plaintiff's indigence is not an || extraordinary circumstance, and he offers no details as to why he requires an attorney that would || demonstrate extraordinary circumstances exist. For these reasons, plaintiff has not shown the || existence of extraordinary circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel.

7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs request for the appointment of | counsel (ECF No. 9) is DENIED.

9 | DATED: December 30, 2025 ~ 10 ththienr—Chnp—e_ ALLISON CLAIRE 11 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.