Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01150/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01150-0/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

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

SCOTT K. RICKS,

Plaintiff,

v.

G. LEVINE, et al.,

Defendants.

1:15-cv-01150 BAM (PC) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

(ECF No. 3)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 24, 2015, 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

Aexceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on

Case 1:15-cv-01150-AWI-BAM Document 7 Filed 07/27/15 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

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).

Here, Plaintiff moves for the appointment of counsel because (1) he is unable to afford 

counsel; (2) his imprisonment will limit his ability to litigate; (3) he has no legal training; (4) he is 

no longer housed at the prison where the incident took place; (5) he is severely mentally and 

physically disabled; (6) trial likely will involve conflicting testimony; and (7) he has made 

repeated attempts to secure counsel. Having considered Plaintiff’s moving papers, the Court does 

not find the required exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff’s assertions of physical and mental 

disabilities are unsupported by any medical records. Additionally, 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 

alleging Eighth Amendment violations 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 27, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01150-AWI-BAM Document 7 Filed 07/27/15 Page 2 of 2