Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01350/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01350-9/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NATHANIEL MARCUS GANN,

Plaintiff,

v.

G. UGWUEZE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-01350-NONE-JLT (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Doc. 37)

Plaintiff requests the appointment of counsel to represent him in this action. (Doc. 37.) 

Plaintiffs do not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in section 1983 actions, 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 extraordinary cases. In determining whether 

“exceptional circumstances exist, a 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).

///

Case 1:19-cv-01350-JLT-CDB Document 38 Filed 07/13/21 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, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even 

if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and has made serious allegations that, if 

proven, would entitle him to relief, his case is not extraordinary. Nor is it extraordinary that 

Plaintiff is incarcerated and proceeding pro se. The Court is faced with similar cases almost daily. 

In addition, at this stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination on whether

Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits; and, based on a review of the records in this case, the 

Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Accordingly, the Court 

DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 13, 2021 _ /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

 CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01350-JLT-CDB Document 38 Filed 07/13/21 Page 2 of 2