Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01362/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01362-12/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT HACKWORTH, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

E. AREVALOS, et al.,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:19-cv-01362-NONE-JLT (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AND 

DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT 

COUNSEL

(Docs. 54, 55)

Plaintiff has filed a third motion for judgment on the grounds of evidence tampering. 

(Doc. 54.) This motion is substantively similar to the two prior motions for judgment, which 

were denied. (See Doc. 41, 45.) Plaintiff again has not demonstrated that he is entitled to 

judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54 or summary judgment under Rule 56.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for judgment. (Doc. 54.)

Plaintiff has also filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. (Doc. 55.) 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. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 

296, 298 (1989). The Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel under section 

1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. However, without a reasonable method of securing and 

compensating counsel, the Court will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and 

Case 1:19-cv-01362-KES-CDB Document 56 Filed 09/27/21 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

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.

Plaintiff’s motion does not indicate exceptional circumstances that warrant appointment 

of counsel. Even assuming 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 almost daily. At this stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot 

determine that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. Moreover, based on a review of the 

record, the Court finds that Plaintiff can articulate his claims adequately. Id. For the foregoing 

reasons, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of 

counsel. (Doc. 55.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 27, 2021 _ /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

 CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01362-KES-CDB Document 56 Filed 09/27/21 Page 2 of 2