Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00016/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00016-15/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Bob Bejarano is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On April 9, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for the appointment of counsel. 

This action is proceeding against Defendants Allison, Goss, Hernandez, and Perez for 

subjecting Plaintiff to conditions of confinement in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 

In the present motion for appointment of counsel, Plaintiff seeks counsel because his claims 

are colorable, he is indigent and lacks the ability to investigate crucial facts, the nature of the evidence 

indicates the truth will likely be exposed if both sides are represented by counsel, and the complexity 

of the legal issues warrant counsel.

There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 

1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require any 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 

BOB BEJARANO,

 Plaintiff,

v.

KATHLEEN ALLISON, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:11-cv-00016-AWI-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

[ECF No. 57]

Case 1:11-cv-00016-DAD-SAB Document 58 Filed 04/14/15 Page 1 of 3
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

U.S. 296, 298 (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 on 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). 

In the present case, the Court does find that neither the interests of justice nor exceptional 

circumstances warrant appointment of counsel at this time. LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th 

Cir. 1987); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). The Court previously denied 

Plaintiff’s requests and nothing has substantially changed in this case since that time to change the 

Court’s analysis. Plaintiff is proceeding on a claim of denial of outdoor exercise in violation of the 

Eighth Amendment and the legal issues present in this action are not complex, and Plaintiff has to date 

demonstrated reasonable writing ability and legal knowledge. 

While a pro se litigant may be better served with the assistance of counsel, so long as a pro se 

litigant, such as Plaintiff in this instance, is able to “articulate his claims against the relative 

complexity of the matter,” the “exceptional circumstances” which might require the appointment of 

counsel do not exist. Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d at 1525 (finding no abuse of discretion under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e) when district court denied appointment of counsel despite fact that pro se prisoner 

“may well have fared better-particularly in the realm of discovery and the securing of expert 

testimony.”) Plaintiff’s claim that he would be better served with counsel to investigate and present 

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 1:11-cv-00016-DAD-SAB Document 58 Filed 04/14/15 Page 2 of 3
3

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

evidence, such circumstance is not exceptional. Accordingly, Plaintiff motion for appointment of 

counsel is DENIED, without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 13, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00016-DAD-SAB Document 58 Filed 04/14/15 Page 3 of 3