Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00119/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00119-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS GOOLSBY, et al.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

MATTHEW CATE, et al.,

Defendants. 

________________________________/

1:13-cv-00119-GSA (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(MOTION #6)

On February 11, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. 

Plaintiffs do 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 attorneyto represent Plaintiffs

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).

-1-

Case 1:13-cv-00119-DAD-EPG Document 7 Filed 02/14/13 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

In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. At this

early stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that Plaintiffs are likely to

succeed on the merits. Plaintiffs filed the Complaint on January 25, 2013, less than a month ago,

and the Complaint awaits the Court’s screening required under 28 U.S.C. 1915A. Thus, to date

the Court has not found any cognizable claims in Plaintiffs’ Complaint for which to initiate service

of process, and no other parties have yet appeared. Moreover, based on a review of the record in

this case, the Court does not find that Plaintiffs cannot adequately articulate their claims. 

Therefore, Plaintiffs’ motion shall be denied without prejudice to renewal of the motion at a later

stage of the proceedings. 

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

DENIED, without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 14, 2013 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

220hhe UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-2-

Case 1:13-cv-00119-DAD-EPG Document 7 Filed 02/14/13 Page 2 of 2