Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01401/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01401-14/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

ISAIAH J. PETILLO, 

Plaintiff,

v.

REYNALDO JASSO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:21-cv-01401-JLT-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(ECF No. 48)

Plaintiff Isaiah J. Petillo is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983.

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, filed 

February 9, 2023. Plaintiff seeks appointment of counsel due to his imprisonment, complexity of 

the issues involved, limited access to the law library, and presentation of conflicting testimony 

should the case proceed to jury trial. (ECF No. 48.) 

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 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 

1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.

Case 1:21-cv-01401-SAB Document 50 Filed 02/10/23 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

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). 

The test for exceptional circumstances requires the Court to evaluate the Plaintiff’s 

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. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 

1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Circumstances 

common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not 

establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of 

counsel. In the present case, Findings and Recommendations have been issued to deny both 

Plaintiff and Defendant’s motions for summary judgment. (ECF No. 47.) The record 

demonstrates that Plaintiff is able to articulate his claims and litigate this action, having filed a 

motion for summary judgment as well as an opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary 

judgment. Accordingly, the Court finds appointment of counsel is not warranted and Plaintiff’s 

motion for appointment of counsel is be DENIED without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 10, 2023 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-01401-SAB Document 50 Filed 02/10/23 Page 2 of 2