Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01362/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01362-22/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

ROBERT HACKWORTH, JR,

Plaintiff,

v.

E. AREVALOS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:19-cv-01362 ADA-CDB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO APPOINT COUNSEL

(Doc. 106)

Plaintiff Robert Hackworth, Jr., is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 24, 2021, 

Plaintiff filed a motion to appoint counsel, which the Court denied. (Docs. 55, 56.) Plaintiff filed

the instant motion to appoint counsel on September 19, 2023. (Doc. 106.) The Court has 

reconsidered Plaintiff’s request in light of the impending trial and denies his renewed request for 

court-appointed counsel. 

I. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

Plaintiffs do not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in section 1983 actions. 

Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), rev’d in part on other grounds, 154 

F.3d 952, 954 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998). The district courts lack authority to require counsel to 

represent indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the S. Dist. of 

Case 1:19-cv-01362-KES-CDB Document 107 Filed 09/22/23 Page 1 of 6
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

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 seeks 

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). A 

likelihood of success on the merits determination is not the same as that required at screening; at 

screening, the Court is tasked with determining whether a plaintiff merely has sufficiently and 

plausibly alleged a cause of action or claim entitling the plaintiff to relief.

The Court must also evaluate Plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claims pro se in light of 

the complexity of the legal issues involved. Id. Plaintiff has prosecuted his claims competently 

and advanced his case towards trial. Specifically, a review of the docket reflects Plaintiff has 

articulated a broad array of thoughtful arguments in connection with discovery and merits-based 

motions and oppositions. Therefore, Plaintiff has been able to articulate his claims in light of 

their complexity. LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987) (affirming district court’s 

denial of request for appointment of counsel where pleadings demonstrated petitioner had “a 

good understanding of the issues and the ability to present forcefully and coherently his 

contentions”). While the Court recognizes that Plaintiff is at a disadvantage due to his pro se

status and his incarceration, the test is not whether Plaintiff would benefit from the appointment 

of counsel. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). The test is whether 

exceptional circumstances exist. As further addressed below, here, exceptional circumstances 

are not present.

There is little doubt most pro se litigants “find it difficult to articulate [their] claims,” and 

would be better served with the assistance of counsel. Id. For this reason, in the absence of 

counsel, federal courts employ procedures that are highly protective of a pro se litigant’s rights. 

See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (holding pro se complaint to less stringent 

Case 1:19-cv-01362-KES-CDB Document 107 Filed 09/22/23 Page 2 of 6
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

standard) (per curiam). In fact, where a plaintiff appears pro se in a civil rights case, the court 

must construe the pleadings liberally and afford the plaintiff any benefit of the doubt. KarimPanahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988). The rule of liberal 

construction is “particularly important in civil rights cases.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 

1261 (9th Cir. 1992). Thus, where a pro se litigant can “articulate his claims” in light of the 

relative complexity of the matter, the “exceptional circumstances” that might warrant the 

appointment of counsel do not exist. Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331; Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 

970 (9th Cir. 2009). See Robinson v. Cryer, No. 1:20-cv-00622-HBK (PC), 2021 WL 9541411, 

at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2021) (“Although Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and is incarcerated, he 

faces the same obstacles all pro se prisoners face”). 

Since the Court’s previous consideration and denial of appointment of counsel, Plaintiff 

has prosecuted his case competently. (See Docs. 55, 56.) An attorney’s ability to better represent 

Plaintiff at trial does not amount to an exceptional circumstance. 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”); Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331

(same); Courtney v. Kandel, No. 2:18-CV-2052-KJM-DMC-P, 2020 WL 1432991, at *1 (E.D. 

Cal. Mar. 24, 2020) (challenges conducting discovery and preparing for trial “are ordinary for 

prisoners pursuing civil rights claim” and cannot form the basis for appointment of counsel);

Ricks v. Austria, No. 1:15-cv-01147-BAM (PC), 2016 WL 1734326, at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 2, 

2016) (while a pro se litigant may be better served with the assistance of counsel were the case 

to proceed to trial, the court need not appoint counsel if plaintiff can articulate his claims and 

exceptional circumstances do not exist); Thornton v. Schwarzenegger, 2011 WL 90320, at *7 

(S.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2011) (explaining that “[f]actual disputes and anticipated cross-examination 

of witnesses do not indicate the presence of complex legal issues warranting a finding of 

exceptional circumstances”). 

B. Requests for Court-Appointed Counsel

On September 27, 2021, the previously assigned magistrate judge denied Plaintiff’s 

Case 1:19-cv-01362-KES-CDB Document 107 Filed 09/22/23 Page 3 of 6
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

4

earlier motion to appoint counsel upon a finding that no exceptional circumstances existed 

warranting the appointment of counsel. (Docs. 55, 56.) Although the instant motion raises most 

of the same arguments, the Court will consider Plaintiff’s renewed request given the progression 

of the case since that ruling.

Plaintiff asserts the following as the bases for his request: (1) he is unable to afford 

counsel and proceeds in forma pauperis; (2) his imprisonment greatly impacts his ability to 

litigate, the issues are complex and will require significant research and investigation; he has 

limited access to the law library and has a limited education; (3) a trial would involve 

conflicting testimony, and counsel would be better able to present evidence and call and crossexamine witnesses; (4) Plaintiff has made repeated efforts to obtain legal assistance without 

success. (Id.)

C. Inability to Afford Counsel

Plaintiff’s inability to afford to hire counsel is a not an exceptional circumstance 

warranting the appointment of counsel. See Dijkstra v. Campos, No. 1:21-cv-01223-HBK, 2022 

WL 222518, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2022) (“Plaintiff’s indigence does not qualify ‘as an 

exceptional circumstance in a prisoner civil rights case’”); Gipbsin v. Kernan, No. 2:12-cv-0556 

KJM DB P, 2021 WL 242570, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2021) (“Plaintiff’s inability to afford 

counsel has no bearing on either his likelihood of success on the merits or his ability to articulate 

his claims pro se”); Callender v. Ramm, No. 2:16-cv-0694 JAM AC P, 2018 WL 6448536, at *3 

(E.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2018) (“The law is clear: neither plaintiff’s indigence, nor his lack of 

education, nor his lack of legal expertise warrant the appointment of counsel”); Montano v. 

Solomon, No. 2:07-cv-0800 KJN P, 2010 WL 2403389, at *2 (E.D. Cal. June 11, 2010) 

(“Neither indigence nor lack of facility in English qualifies as an exceptional circumstance in a 

prisoner civil rights case”). 

D. Imprisonment/Issue Complexity

While the Court recognizes that Plaintiff is at a disadvantage due to his pro se status and 

his incarceration, as set forth above, the test is not whether Plaintiff would benefit from the 

appointment of counsel. See Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331. The test is whether exceptional 

Case 1:19-cv-01362-KES-CDB Document 107 Filed 09/22/23 Page 4 of 6
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

5

circumstances exist. Although Plaintiff asserts in summary fashion that “the issues involved in 

this case are complex” (Doc. 106), he does not identify any such issues. To the contrary, the 

Court has reviewed and considers Plaintiff’s retaliation-based claim to be straightforward. E.g., 

Branch v. Umphenour, No. 1:08-cv-01655-SAB (PC), 2023 WL 2774690, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 

4, 2023).

E. Conflicting Testimony & Examination of Witnesses at Trial

An attorney’s ability to represent Plaintiff at trial better than he can represent himself

does not amount to an exceptional circumstance. 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”); Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331 (same); Courtney v. Kandel, No. 

2:18-CV-2052-KJM-DMC-P, 2020 WL 1432991, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2020) (challenges 

conducting discovery and preparing for trial “are ordinary for prisoners pursuing civil rights 

claim” and cannot form the basis for appointment of counsel); Ricks v. Austria, No. 1:15-cv01147-BAM (PC), 2016 WL 1734326, at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 2, 2016) (while a pro se litigant 

may be better served with the assistance of counsel were the case to proceed to trial, the court 

need not appoint counsel if plaintiff can articulate his claims and exceptional circumstances do 

not exist); Thornton v. Schwarzenegger, No. 10CV01583 BTM RBB, 2011 WL 90320, at *7 

(S.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2011) (explaining that “[f]actual disputes and anticipated cross-examination 

of witnesses do not indicate the presence of complex legal issues warranting a finding of 

exceptional circumstances”). 

F. Unsuccessful Efforts to Obtain Counsel

While the Court appreciates Plaintiff's efforts to secure counsel, his inability to find 

counsel is not “a proper factor for the Court to consider in determining whether to request 

counsel. Howard v. Hedgpeth, No. 08cv0859 RTB (PCL), 2010 WL 1641087, at *2 (E.D. Cal. 

Apr. 20, 2010) (an inability to find counsel is not a proper factor for the Court to consider). 

II. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds exceptional circumstances do not exist in this 

Case 1:19-cv-01362-KES-CDB Document 107 Filed 09/22/23 Page 5 of 6
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

6

action to warrant the Court’s appointment of counsel. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (Doc. 

106) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 21, 2023 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01362-KES-CDB Document 107 Filed 09/22/23 Page 6 of 6