Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00481/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00481-3/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICARDO C. WHEATLEY, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

SERGEANT D. DOMINGUEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-00481-BAK (SAB) (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(ECF No. 17)

Plaintiff Ricardo C. Wheatley, 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 August 18, 2022, Plaintiff 

filed a motion for the appointment of counsel. (ECF No 17.) As grounds, Plaintiff states that he 

cannot afford to hire counsel; the issues in this case are complex; because he is in a mental 

hospital, he has limited access to the law library; and he has contacted two attorneys but was 

unable to obtain representation. (Id.)

Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action. Rand v. 

Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997). 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 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.

Case 1:20-cv-00481-CDB Document 18 Filed 08/22/22 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

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). 

The Court does not find that this case presents the required exceptional circumstances. 

Even if it 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, this case is not exceptional. The Court is 

faced with similar cases almost daily. While the Court recognizes that Plaintiff is at a 

disadvantage due to his pro se status and her 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) (“Most actions require development of further facts during litigation and a pro se 

litigant will seldom be in a position to investigate easily the facts necessary to support the case.”) 

The test is whether exception circumstances exist, and here, they do not. 

At this stage of the proceedings, the Court cannot determine whether Plaintiff is likely to 

proceed on the merits of his claim. Circumstances common to most prisoners, such as lack of 

legal education and limited law library access, do not establish exceptional circumstances that 

would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. Also, based on a review of the 

record in this case, the Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. 

Plaintiff is advised that in ruling on any matters, the Court will thoroughly review the record of 

the case and research the relevant legal standards. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of 

counsel, (ECF No. 17), is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 22, 2022 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00481-CDB Document 18 Filed 08/22/22 Page 2 of 2