Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01156/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01156-5/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

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

Plaintiff Perry C. Blair is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On October 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for 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 any 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 (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 on the 

PERRY C. BLAIR,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CDCR, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01156-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

[ECF No. 19]

Case 1:14-cv-01156-DAD-SAB Document 24 Filed 10/29/15 Page 1 of 2
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

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 test for exceptional circumstances requires the Court to evaluate the Plaintiff’s 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. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 

1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). 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. In the present case, 

Defendants have not yet been served and no dispositive motions have been filed. Thus, the Court 

cannot determine whether Plaintiff is likely to proceed on the merits of his case. Accordingly, 

Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel will be DENIED, without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 29, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01156-DAD-SAB Document 24 Filed 10/29/15 Page 2 of 2