Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-00294/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-00294-18/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

CHRISTOPHER DICKSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

GOMEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:17-cv-00294-DAD-BAM (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT 

COUNSEL

(ECF No. 68)

Plaintiff Christopher Dickson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds 

against Defendants Gomez, Rios, and Martinez for excessive force and against Defendants 

Duncan and Esparza for violations of Plaintiff’s due process rights.

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, filed April 16, 

2021. (ECF No. 68.) In his motion, Plaintiff states that he cannot afford counsel, his 

imprisonment will greatly limit his ability to litigate, and he has no legal training. In addition, 

due to COVID-19, inmates are only allowed access to the library once a week and sometimes not 

at all. Plaintiff argues that the issues involved in this case are complex and will require 

significant research and investigation, deposition testimony, and a trial in this case will involve 

conflicting testimony and counsel would better enable Plaintiff to present evidence and cross 

examine witnesses. Plaintiff has witnesses that have been transferred to different prisons or 

Case 1:17-cv-00294-KES-BAM Document 69 Filed 04/19/21 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

institutions that need to be interviewed and deposed. The case will be a credibility contest 

between the defendants and the Plaintiff. Plaintiff has been trying to locate an attorney to 

represent him but has had no success. Plaintiff specifically requests that the Court appoint 

Attorney Barth Daly to represent Plaintiff. (Id.)

Defendants have not yet had an opportunity to file a response, but the Court finds a 

response unnecessary. The motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

As Plaintiff was previously informed, he does not have a constitutional right to appointed 

counsel in this action, 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), and the court cannot require an attorney to 

represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the S. Dist. 

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 

“exceptional circumstances exist, a 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). 

The Court has considered Plaintiff’s request, but 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 filed by prisoners who are proceeding pro se and with 

limited access to the law library almost daily. Many of these prisoners also have cases involving 

credibility issues. These litigants also must conduct discovery and litigate their cases without the 

assistance of counsel.

Furthermore, at this stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that 

Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. Although some of Plaintiff’s claims survived 

Defendants’ summary judgment motion on the issue of exhaustion, this does not mean he will 

Case 1:17-cv-00294-KES-BAM Document 69 Filed 04/19/21 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

prevail on the merits of his claims. Based on a review of the record in this case, the Court does 

not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims.

As to Plaintiff’s request that the Court appoint a specific attorney to represent him, the 

Court is unable to do so. Plaintiff is free to continue communicating with any potential attorneys 

to see if they are willing to represent him in this matter. Finally, the Court notes that if Plaintiff 

continues to experience limited or no access to the law library at his institution, he should seek 

appropriate extensions of time for any applicable deadlines.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel, (ECF No. 68), is HEREBY DENIED, 

without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 19, 2021 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:17-cv-00294-KES-BAM Document 69 Filed 04/19/21 Page 3 of 3