Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01029/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01029-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens 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 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDGAR NELSON PITTS,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANDRE MATEVOUSIAN, et al.,

Defendants.

1:19-cv-01029-NONE-GSA (PC) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

(Document #19)

On February 14, 2020, 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 

“exceptional 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 1:19-cv-01029-NONE-GSA Document 20 Filed 02/21/20 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

In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. 

Plaintiff asserts that his documents were wrongly confiscated by prison officials. While loss of 

his documents makes it difficult for Plaintiff to litigate this case, this condition does not cause 

Plaintiff’s case to be exceptional under the standards of the Ninth Circuit discussed above. At 

this early stage in the proceedings, the court is unable to make a determination that plaintiff is 

likely to succeed on the merits. Plaintiff’s Complaint awaits the court’s screening required under 

28 U.S.C. § 1915 and thus to date, the court has not found any cognizable claims in plaintiff’s 

Complaint. The legal issues in this case -- whether defendants retaliated against Plaintiff and

violated Plaintiff’s due process and Eighth Amendment rights by detaining him in solitary 

confinement -- are not complex. Moreover, based on a review of the record in this case, the court 

finds that plaintiff can adequately articulate his claims. Therefore, plaintiff’s motion shall be 

denied, without prejudice to renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY 

DENIED, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 20, 2020 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01029-NONE-GSA Document 20 Filed 02/21/20 Page 2 of 2