Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01461/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01461-53/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

ADAM JAY STONE,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. PFEIFFER, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:21-cv-01461-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(ECF No. 197)

Plaintiff Adam Jay Stone is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case is currently set for jury trial on April 29, 2025.

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, filed January 

15, 2025. 

As Plaintiff is aware, 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 

Case 1:21-cv-01461-SAB Document 199 Filed 01/17/25 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 circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the 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.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 

The Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff requests 

appointment of counsel because: (1) he does not have proper access to law library, photocopies, 

and supplies; (2) lack of access to witnesses; (3) the evidentiary issues in the case are complex; 

and (4) he has been unable to retain counsel. (ECF No. 197.) The Court has considered 

Plaintiff's request, but does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even if it is assumed 

that Plaintiff has made serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is 

not exceptional. This Court is faced with similar cases filed almost daily by prisoners who are 

proceeding pro se who must obtain discovery, research different legal claims, and proceed to a 

trial before a jury. These plaintiffs also must litigate their cases without the assistance of counsel. 

Indeed, the extensive record in this case reflects that Plaintiff is fully capable of litigating this 

case pro se in a jury trial, as he has filed a motion for attendance of incarcerated, motion for 

attendance of unincarcerated witnesses, and a pretrial statement without the assistance of counsel. 

(ECF Nos. 190, 191, 198.) In addition, Plaintiff is proceeding on a simple claim of excessive 

force which is not complex. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is 

DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 17, 2025 

STANLEY A. BOONE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:21-cv-01461-SAB Document 199 Filed 01/17/25 Page 2 of 2