Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01801/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01801-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NORMAN GERALD DANIELS III,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. BAER, et al.,

Defendants.

1:19-cv-01801-GSA (PC) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

(Document #8)

On February 3, 2020, plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. 

Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 

113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require an attorney to represent 

plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the 

Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in certain 

exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 

section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 

Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek 

volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 

“exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of 

the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 

complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

Case 1:19-cv-01801-AWI-GSA Document 9 Filed 02/06/20 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. 

Plaintiff argues that counsel should be appointed because he suffers from impaired vision. This 

alone does not make plaintiff’s case exceptional under the Ninth Circuit’s standards discussed 

above. At this early stage in the proceedings, the court cannot make a determination that plaintiff 

is likely to succeed on the merits. This case was removed to federal court on December 23, 2019, 

and the complaint awaits the court’s screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Thus, to date the court 

has not found any cognizable claims in plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff’s claims, for violation of 

due process, cruel and unusual punishment, and conspiracy to violate the First Amendment, are 

not complex. Moreover, based on a review of the record in this case, the court finds that plaintiff 

can adequately articulate his claims. Therefore, plaintiff’s motion shall be denied without 

prejudice to renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings. 

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY 

DENIED, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 6, 2020 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01801-AWI-GSA Document 9 Filed 02/06/20 Page 2 of 2