Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00768/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00768-29/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAKEITH L. MCCOY,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. HOLGUIN, ET. AL.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00768-DAD-HBK

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION 

TO APPOINTC COUNSEL

(Doc. No. 166)

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel, filed on October 29, 

2021. (Doc. No. 166). Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, is currently incarcerated at Kern 

Valley State Prison and proceeding on his Second Amended Complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 

1983 raising Eighth Amendment violations stemming from an alleged excessive use of force and 

failure to intervene claims. (Doc. No. 15). 

On September 27, 2021, the district court granted pro bono counsel’s motion to withdraw 

and denied Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel. (Doc. No. 164). Briefly stated, Plaintiff had a 

disagreement with appointed pro bono counsel, did not oppose his pro bono counsel’s 

withdrawal. Plaintiff believed that his attorney could not adequately represent him due to a

conflict of interest because they could not agree how to proceed in litigating the case. (Id. at 2) 

(citing Doc. No. 162 at 3-4). In denying Plaintiff’s second motion to appoint new pro bono

counsel, the district court noted that Plaintiff no longer shows exceptional circumstances exist to 

Case 1:15-cv-00768-KES-HBK Document 169 Filed 11/10/21 Page 1 of 3
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

warrant a new, pro bono attorney. (Id. at 3). 

Plaintiff’s renewed motion for appointment of counsel again requests appointment of new 

pro bono counsel. In support, Plaintiff notes that he successfully defeated summary judgment 

motions, but argues inter alia that: his case is complex; he is not permitted enough time in the 

library to prosecute his case; many resources are only available electronically and cannot be 

accessed in a prisoner’s cell; he anticipates being transferred to a different correctional institution; 

and copies of materials are often delayed up to two weeks. (Doc. No. 166 at 2-6). Although 

unrelated to his instant motion, Plaintiff belabors his concerns with the prior pro bono counsel.

As Plaintiff was previously advised, the United States Constitution does not require 

appointment of counsel in civil cases. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354 (1996) (explaining 

Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. at 817, did not create a right to appointment of counsel in civil cases). 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, this court has discretionary authority to appoint counsel for an indigent 

to commence, prosecute, or defend a civil action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (stating the court 

has authority to appoint counsel for people unable to afford counsel); see also United States v. 

McQuade, 519 F.2d 1180 (9th Cir. 1978) (addressing relevant standard of review for motions to 

appoint counsel in civil cases) (other citations omitted). However, motions to appoint counsel in 

civil cases are granted only in “exceptional circumstances.” Id. at 1181. The Court may consider 

many factors to determine if exceptional circumstances warrant appointment of counsel 

including, but not limited to, proof of indigence, the likelihood of success on the merits, and the 

ability of the plaintiff to articulate his or her claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal 

issues involved. Id.; see also Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn 

in part on other grounds on reh’g en banc, 154 F.2d 952 (9th Cir. 1998). 

Indeed, Plaintiff no longer meets his “burden of demonstrating exceptional

circumstances.” Jones v. Chen, 2014 WL 12684497, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2014). Many of 

the issues Plaintiff raises in the instant motion are circumstances faced by all prisoners litigating 

civil rights actions. Courtney v. Kandel, 2020 WL 1432991 at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2020) 

(noting challenges preparing for trial are ordinary for prisoners pursuing civil rights claim and 

cannot form the basis for appointment of counsel). Nor does Plaintiff state that he has attempted 

Case 1:15-cv-00768-KES-HBK Document 169 Filed 11/10/21 Page 2 of 3
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

3

to secure alternative counsel, after pro bono counsel was granted leave to withdraw, to no avail. 

Gulley v. Dzuenda, 686 F. Supp. 2d. 173, 174 (D. Conn. Feb. 25, 2010)(denying prisoner-plaintiff 

subsequent motion to appoint counsel after counsel withdrew when plaintiff made no new 

attempts to find an attorney).

Plaintiff was previously granted pro bono counsel, but due to Plaintiff’s disagreements 

with counsel’s litigation strategy, pro bono counsel’s unopposed motion to withdraw was granted. 

Volunteer lawyer time is valuable and is a limited commodity. Considering the record in this 

case, Plaintiff’s position with his prior pro bono attorney, and as Plaintiff notes, his success 

overcoming Defendants’ summary judgment motions while proceeding pro se, the Court finds 

Plaintiff has not demonstrated exceptional circumstances. Indeed, Plaintiff has demonstrated his 

ability to proceed pro se in this case. See Barnes v. Alves, 10 F. Supp. 3d 382 (W.D. N.Y. March 

20, 2014) (denying subsequent motions to appoint counsel after prior pro bono counsel withdrew 

due to plaintiff’s treatment of pro bono counsel).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (Doc. No. 166) is DENIED.

Dated: November 10, 2021 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00768-KES-HBK Document 169 Filed 11/10/21 Page 3 of 3