(PC) Smith v. Gonzales, 1:17-cv-00436

Larry Smith, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the Eastern District of California in 2017.
The case has survived summary judgment and is now set for trial, with the plaintiff having already submitted his pretrial statement.
Smith recently requested appointment of counsel due to anticipated medical treatment at an outside hospital, which may disrupt his ability to participate in pending court proceedings.
This was Smith’s second request for counsel in two days; both requests cited imminent medical procedures as justification.
Smith has also refused prescribed antibiotics to protest the alleged inadequate medical care at his correctional facility, potentially impacting his trial participation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument or Position	Held
Appointment of Counsel	Needs counsel due to medical treatment disrupting participation	Not needed, as Smith has managed case thus far	Denied; no exceptional circumstances justifying appointment
Impact of Medical Care/Refusal	Medical issues may hinder preparation and participation	No position stated	Refusal is voluntary; trial schedule will not be altered absent good cause

Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296 (1989) (district courts cannot require counsel to represent indigent § 1983 plaintiffs)
Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015 (9th Cir. 1991) (exceptional circumstances required to warrant appointment of counsel)
Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332 (9th Cir. 1990) (district courts have limited discretion to appoint counsel for indigent prisoners)
Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 2009) (exceptional circumstances standard for appointment of counsel)