Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01187/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01187-7/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

KEVIN ALLEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

V. BENTACOURT, et al.,

Defendant.

1:18-cv-01187-NONE-GSA (PC) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

(Document #33)

On July 20, 2020, 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).

Case 1:18-cv-01187-JLT-GSA Document 34 Filed 07/23/20 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 

early stage in the proceedings, the court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to 

succeed on the merits. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint was dismissed on December 11, 

2019 for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend. To date, Plaintiff has not filed a Second 

Amended Complaint. Thus, there is no complaint on record in this case for which the court has 

found cognizable claims. It is too early for service of process, and no other parties have yet 

appeared. Moreover, a review of the record shows that Plaintiff can adequately articulate his 

claims and respond to the court’s orders. Plaintiff’s conditions of confinement claim under the 

Eighth Amendment is not complex. Plaintiff is advised that he is not precluded from renewing 

the motion for appointment of counsel 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: July 23, 2020 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-01187-JLT-GSA Document 34 Filed 07/23/20 Page 2 of 2