Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00615/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00615-12/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

JAQUES FEARENCE,

Plaintiff,

v.

L.L. SCHULTEIS, et al,

Defendant.

1:08-cv-00615-LJO-GSA (PC) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

(Document# 58)

On October 7, 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 

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 1:08-cv-00615-SAB Document 59 Filed 10/10/13 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 2

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

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

on the merits. The case is presently in the discovery phase, and plaintiff has requested to amend 

the complaint to identify one of the defendants who has not been served with process. Based on 

the record in this case, the court does not find that plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his 

claims. Further, the legal issues in this case B whether defendants used excessive force, conspired 

to use excessive force, and failed to protect plaintiff B are 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 10, 2013 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00615-SAB Document 59 Filed 10/10/13 Page 2 of 2