Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01042/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01042-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID ANDREWS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

S. TORRES, et al.,

Defendants. 

________________________________/

1:12-cv-01042-GSA (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

( #12)

On August 21, 2013, 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).

-1-

Case 1:12-cv-01042-BAM Document 13 Filed 08/22/13 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

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

early stage in the proceedings, the court cannot make a determination that plaintiff is likely to

succeed on the merits. Plaintiff=s complaint awaits the Court=s screening required under 28 U.S.C.

1915. Thus, to date the Court has not found any cognizable claims in plaintiff=s complaint for

which to initiate service of process, and no other parties have yet appeared. The legal issue in this

case B whether defendants violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights when processing inmate appeals

B is not complex, and this court is faced with similar cases almost daily. Moreover, based on a

review of the record in this case, the Court does not find that plaintiff cannot 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: August 22, 2013 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

220hhe UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-2-

Case 1:12-cv-01042-BAM Document 13 Filed 08/22/13 Page 2 of 2