Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01448/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01448-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

1

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

Plaintiff Muhammad Nuriddin is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Bivens actions and actions 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “are identical save for the replacement of a state actor under § 1983 by a 

federal actor under Bivens.” Van Strum v. Lawn, 940 F.2d 406, 409 (9th Cir. 1991).

 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 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 

MUHAMMAD NURIDDIN,

 Plaintiff,

v.

ESTRELLA, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:11-cv-01448-LJO-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT 

OF COUNSEL

[ECF No. 47] 

Case 1:11-cv-01448-LJO-SAB Document 49 Filed 05/19/15 Page 1 of 2
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

“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). 

In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even if it 

assumed that plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations which, if 

proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s 

claim of retaliation. The legal issues present in this action are not complex, and Plaintiff has 

thoroughly litigated this action to date. While a pro se litigant may be better served with the assistance 

of counsel, so long as a pro se litigant, such as Plaintiff in this instance, is able to “articulate his claims 

against the relative complexity of the matter,” the “exceptional circumstances” which might require 

the appointment of counsel do not exist. Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d at 1525 (finding no abuse of 

discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) when district court denied appointment of counsel despite fact 

that pro se prisoner “may well have fared better-particularly in the realm of discovery and the securing 

of expert testimony.”) 

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY 

DENIED, without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 18, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01448-LJO-SAB Document 49 Filed 05/19/15 Page 2 of 2