Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02003/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02003-0/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 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOVON’Z SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. GARCIA,

Defendant.

1:13-cv-02003-AWI-GSA (PC) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

(Document# 15)

On June 23, 2014, 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 

Aexceptional 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 1:13-cv-02003-AWI-SAB Document 19 Filed 07/11/14 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, Plaintiff argues that he is hearing impaired, of low intelligence, and 

low functioning. This does not make Plaintiff’s case exceptional. This court is faced with similar 

cases daily. While the court has found that Plaintiff “has stated a colorable claim for relief 

against Defendant for the use of excessive force,” this finding is not a determination that Plaintiff 

is likely to succeed on the merits and at this juncture, the court cannot find that Plaintiff is likely 

to succeed on the merits. (Order, Doc. 8:15.) Plaintiff’s claims do not appear complex, and 

based on a review of the record in this case, the court does not find that plaintiff cannot 

adequately articulate his claims. Thus, the court does not find the required exceptional 

circumstances, and 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: July 11, 2014 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-02003-AWI-SAB Document 19 Filed 07/11/14 Page 2 of 2