Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01472/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01472-18/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

CORNELL BROWN,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. HARRIS, et al.,

Defendants.

1:12-cv-01472-LJO-GSA (PC) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

(Document# 67)

On March 26, 2015, 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 

Aexceptional 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 1:12-cv-01472-BAM Document 69 Filed 04/02/15 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

Plaintiff’s prior motion for appointment of counsel was filed on February 9, 2015 and denied 

by the court on February 13, 2015, less than two months ago. (Docs. 63, 65.) Plaintiff again argues 

that he is unable to afford counsel and that his imprisonment will greatly limit his ability to litigate. 

Plaintiff argues that he expects to need assistance at trial and to secure expert witnesses, and that he is 

a layman at law with mental health needs and cannot proceed effectively without assistance. This 

does not make plaintiff’s case exceptional. This court is faced with similar cases daily. While the 

court has found that “Plaintiff states a colorable claim for relief against Defendant Harris for 

excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and against Defendant Nelson for failure to 

protect Plaintiff in violation of the Eighth Amendment,” this finding is not a determination that 

Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits and at this juncture, the court cannot find that Plaintiff is 

likely to succeed on the merits. Plaintiff’s claims do not appear complex, and based on a review of the 

record in this case, the court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Thus, 

the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances, and 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: April 2, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01472-BAM Document 69 Filed 04/02/15 Page 2 of 2