Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01026/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01026-0/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Randy Stoops is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On July 15, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for 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 (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] 

RANDY STOOPS,

 Plaintiff,

v.

STUART SHERMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-01026-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT 

OF COUNSEL

[ECF No. 3]

Case 1:16-cv-01026-AWI-SAB Document 7 Filed 07/19/16 Page 1 of 2
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

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).

In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even if it 

is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations which, if 

proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This Court is faced with similar cases 

almost daily. Further, at this early stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination 

that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits, and based on a review of the record in this case, the 

Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id. 

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff=s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY 

DENIED, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 18, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01026-AWI-SAB Document 7 Filed 07/19/16 Page 2 of 2