Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-02039/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-02039-1/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

JEREMIAH VICKERS,

Plaintiff,

v.

SGT. MALDONADO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-02039-SAB-PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND 

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 

COUNSEL

(ECF NO. 23)

Plaintiff Jeremiah Vickers is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On March 25, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for the appointment of counsel. (ECF No.

23.) Plaintiff’s first motion for appointment of counsel was denied on February 4, 2015. (ECF 

No. 7) 

Plaintiff is advised that there is no 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 195(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 

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).

Case 1:14-cv-02039-SAB Document 24 Filed 03/28/16 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 has considered Plaintiff’s moving papers, but does not find 

the required exceptional circumstances. LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987); 

Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff is proceeding on a claim of 

excessive force and the legal issues present in this action are not complex, and Plaintiff has 

thoroughly set forth his arguments in the complaint filed in this action. Plaintiff argues that it is 

difficult for him to litigate this action because of his incarceration and that if this case goes to 

trial, there will be conflicting testimony. In forma pauperis status alone does not alone entitle 

Plaintiff to appointed counsel. That it is difficult for Plaintiff to litigate this case because of his 

incarceration does not constitute exceptional circumstances. 

While a pro se litigant may be setter served with the assistance of counsel, so long as a 

pro se litigant, such as Plaintiff in this instance, is able to “articulate his claims against the 

relative complexity of the matter,” the “exceptional circumstances” which might require the 

appointment of counsel do not exist. Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (finding no abuse of discretion 

under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e) when district court denied appointment of counsel despite fact that pro 

se prisoner “may well have fared better – particularly in the realm of discovery and the securing 

of expert testimony.”) Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for the 

appointment of counsel is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 28, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-02039-SAB Document 24 Filed 03/28/16 Page 2 of 2