Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00860/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00860-1/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALFONSO HALL,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. SMITH, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00860-BAM-PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 

COUNSEL

(ECF NO. 12)

Plaintiff Hall is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 19, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for the 

appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 12.) 

Plaintiff is advised that 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 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain 

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

section 195(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 has considered Plaintiff’s moving papers, but does not find 

the required exceptional circumstances. LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987); 

Case 1:15-cv-00860-LJO-BAM Document 14 Filed 01/22/16 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

Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff is proceeding on a claim of 

excessive force, failure to protect, and interference with his right to send mail. Plaintiff argues 

that it is the issues in this case are complex and involve confidential information. The legal 

issues present in this action are not complex, and Plaintiff has thoroughly set forth his arguments 

in the complaint filed in this action. In forma pauperis status alone does not alone entitle 

Plaintiff to appointed counsel. That it may be difficult for Plaintiff to prosecute his case does not 

constitute exceptional circumstances. 

While a pro se litigant may be setter 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, 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.”) The Court finds that Plaintiff is able to articulate his claims. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s second motion for the appointment of 

counsel is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 21, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00860-LJO-BAM Document 14 Filed 01/22/16 Page 2 of 2