Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00788/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00788-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LIONEL LAMAR SHELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

W.J. SULLIVAN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-00788-JLT (PC)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME AND DENYING 

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 

COUNSEL

(Docs. 17, 18)

Plaintiff requests a 30-day extension of time to comply with the Court’s second screening 

order (Doc. 15). (Doc. 18.) Plaintiff states that the prison in which he is incarcerated is on a 

“modified program” due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which has limited his access to the law 

library. (Id.) The Court finds good cause to grant Plaintiff’s request.

Plaintiff also requests the appointment of counsel. (Doc. 17.) Plaintiff does not have a 

constitutional right to appointed counsel in this civil action, see Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 

1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent a party under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 304-05 (1989). However, in 

“exceptional circumstances,” the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant 

to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.

Given that the Court has no reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the 

Court will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining 

Case 1:19-cv-00788-DAD-JLT Document 19 Filed 05/28/20 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

whether “exceptional circumstances exist, a district court must evaluate both the likelihood of 

success on the merits [and] the ability of the [petitioner] to articulate his claims pro se in light of 

the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

In the present case, the Court does not find the requisite exceptional circumstances at this 

time. Even if it is assumed that Plaintiff has made serious allegations that, if proven, would entitle 

him to relief, his case is not extraordinary. The Court is faced with similar cases almost daily. 

Plaintiff appears able to articulate his claims and, at this stage in the proceedings, the Court 

cannot determine whether Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. Thus, the Court ORDERS:

1. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time (Doc. 18) is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall

have 30 days from the date of service of this order to comply with the Court’s second 

screening order (Doc. 15).

2. Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel (Doc. 17) is DENIED without 

prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 28, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00788-DAD-JLT Document 19 Filed 05/28/20 Page 2 of 2