Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01625/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01625-27/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

GEORGE E. JACOBS IV,

Plaintiff,

v.

W. J. SULLIVAN, et al.,

Defendants.

1:05-cv-01625-GSA-PC 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

(Doc. 138.)

On January 12, 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 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 1:05-cv-01625-SAB Document 139 Filed 01/16/15 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

Here, Plaintiff renews his motion for appointment of counsel following the court’s order 

of August 13, 2014 which denied his previous motion in this case. In this renewed motion, the 

court finds no evidence of significant change in Plaintiff’s circumstances. 

Plaintiff again argues that he is incapable of making a reasoned response to the court’s 

order to show cause of July 7, 2014, because bankruptcy law is complex and he is “unable to 

follow the required procedural and legal requirements called for in a complex bankruptcy suit.”1 

(Motion at 8:24-26.) Plaintiff’s case is not a complex bankruptcy suit. The court’s order to show 

cause only requires Plaintiff to state reasons, if any, that this case should not proceed to trial, with 

or without defendant Crotty. If Plaintiff is unable to show cause, the court will schedule this case 

for trial. Defendants have argued that this case should proceed to trial without defendant Crotty 

because further delay will result in fading memories, Defendants retiring and moving out of state, 

and loss of evidence. Defendants have also asserted that Plaintiff has not filed a claim with the 

bankruptcy court, and therefore any claims for money damages Plaintiff had against defendant 

Crotty will be discharged with the bankruptcy. 

Plaintiff again argues that he is at a disability because of his incarceration, lacks access to 

legal tools, and is limited in his ability to conduct legal research or pursue factual investigations. 

The fact that Plaintiff faces challenges because of his imprisonment does not make Plaintiff’s 

case exceptional. The court is faced with similar cases daily. 

Plaintiff urges the court to consider law from the Second, Third, Seventh, and Eighth 

Circuits. However, this court is bound by the law of the Ninth Circuit. 

Likelihood of success on the merits. The court cannot find that Plaintiff is likely to 

succeed on the merits in this case. While the court has found that Plaintiff has stated a cognizable 

 

1 On June 23, 2011, the court stayed this action as to defendant Crotty pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 

362(a), pending resolution of defendant Crotty’s bankruptcy proceeding. (Doc. 58.) On June 30, 2014, 

Defendants filed a status report asserting that defendant Crotty’s bankruptcy will continue until at least 

May 2016. (Doc. 126.) Defendants argue that it does not appear efficient to wait for trial until after the 

bankruptcy ends, and they assert that as a potential creditor, Plaintiff did not file a claim with the 

bankruptcy court, such that any claim for money damages Plaintiff had against Crotty are or will be 

discharged. Id. On July 7, 2014, the court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to show cause why this case 

should not proceed to trial, either continuing to stay the case against defendant Crotty under 11 U.S.C. § 

362(a), or dismissing defendant Crotty from this action. (Doc. 127.) 

Case 1:05-cv-01625-SAB Document 139 Filed 01/16/15 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

claim against the defendants for the violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment, this 

finding is not a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits.

Ability of plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal 

issues involved. Based on a review of the court’s record in this case, the court finds that Plaintiff 

is clearly able to articulate his claims pro se. Plaintiff’s claims in this case, that defendants used 

excessive force against him, are not complex. The core judicial inquiry in an excessive force 

claim is . . . whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or 

maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.@ Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 7 (1992). In light 

of the nature of Plaintiff’s claims, the court finds that Plaintiff is able to adequately express his 

claims pro se.

Thus, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances, and Plaintiff’s 

motion shall be denied.

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff=s motion for the 

appointment of counsel, filed on January 12, 2015, is DENIED, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 16, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01625-SAB Document 139 Filed 01/16/15 Page 3 of 3