Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01942/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01942-2/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

RICHARD SANSONE,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. C. THOMAS,

Defendant.

1:13-cv-01942-LJO-GSA (PC) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

(Document# 19)

On September 15, 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-01942-DAD-EPG Document 21 Filed 09/18/14 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 in a mental health program, cannot afford 

counsel, and is detained in administrative segregation with limited access to his legal property and 

the law library. This does not make Plaintiff’s case exceptional. This court is faced with similar 

cases daily. While the court has found that “Plaintiff’s complaint states a claim under the Eighth 

Amendment against Defendant Thomas for use of excessive physical 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. 9 at 4:3-4.) Plaintiff’s claim for 

excessive force against one defendant does 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: September 18, 2014 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01942-DAD-EPG Document 21 Filed 09/18/14 Page 2 of 2