Chauncey T. Lewis v. Farhat

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: February 6, 2026
• Docket: 2:24-cv-00233
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHAUNCEY T. LEWIS, No. 2:24-CV-0233-DC-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 FARHAT, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel, 19 ECF No. 55. 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, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the district court may 23 request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See Terrell v. 24 Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 25 (9th Cir. 1990). A finding of “exceptional circumstances” requires an evaluation of both the 26 likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims on his 27 own in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017. 28 Neither factor is dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision. See id. 1 | In Terrell, the Ninth Circuit concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion with respect 2 || to appointment 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 he is indigent, 9 || he is incarcerated, he has limited access to the prison law library, he is untrained in the law, he 10 | has low reading and writing skills, and trial will likely involve conflicting testimony. The Court 11 | finds that these are the typical circumstances of prisoners litigating in federal court and are not the 12 || exceptional circumstances justifying appointment of volunteer counsel. Further, at this stage of 13 || the proceedings before any discovery has been conducted, the Court cannot say that Plaintiff has 14 || established any particular likelihood of success on the merits. Finally, a review of the docket 15 || reflects that Plaintiff has been able to articulate cognizable claims on his own. 16 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for the 17 || appointment of counsel, ECF No. 55, is denied. 18 19 | Dated: February 4, 2026 Co 20 DENNIS M. COTA 7] UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28