Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00519/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00519-6/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

BRIAN ESPRITT,

Plaintiff,

vs.

A. SAESEE, et al.,

Defendants. 

________________________________/

1:11-cv-00519-AWI-GSA-(PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(DOCUMENT #38)

On September 25, 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 1:11-cv-00519-AWI-SAB Document 39 Filed 10/03/13 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 stage of the proceedings, the court cannot make a determination that plaintiff is likely to

succeed on the merits. Defendants= motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative

remedies is now pending and may dispose of the case. Moreover, based on the record in this

case, the court does not find that plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Further, the

legal issue in this case B whether defendants used excessive force B is not complex, and this

court is faced with similar cases almost daily. 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: October 3, 2013 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

220hhe UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-2-

Case 1:11-cv-00519-AWI-SAB Document 39 Filed 10/03/13 Page 2 of 2