Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00250/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00250-13/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

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 George K. Colbert is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

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

filed July 7, 2016. (ECF No. 86.) There is no 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 

“exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on the 

GEORGE K. COLBERT,

Plaintiff,

v.

P. CHAVEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:10-cv-00250-DAD-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 

PLAINTIFF’S SECOND MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

[ECF No. 86]

Case 1:10-cv-00250-DAD-SAB Document 87 Filed 07/11/16 Page 1 of 3
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

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 finds that neither the interests of justice nor exceptional 

circumstances warrant appointment of counsel at this time. LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th 

Cir. 1987); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). While counsel may be able to 

cross-examine witnesses at trial, so long as a pro se litigant, like Plaintiff in this case, 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, 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-particular in the realms of discovery and 

the security of expert testimony.”) Indeed, any pro se litigant “would be better served with the 

assistance of counsel.” Id. 

In the present case, the Court finds that neither the interests of justice nor exceptional 

circumstances warrant appointment of counsel at this time. LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th 

Cir. 1987); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff is proceeding against 

Defendants Ramirez and Flores for excessive force and retaliation and against Defendant Farnsworth 

for failure to protect, and Plaintiff has demonstrated an ability to articulate the factual and legal basis

for his arguments and has effectively litigated this case 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.”) In addition, circumstances common to 

most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not establish 

exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. Based on 

the information presently before the Court, it is apparent that Plaintiff has the competence necessary to 

pursue this case to trial. Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s arguments do not present exceptional 

Case 1:10-cv-00250-DAD-SAB Document 87 Filed 07/11/16 Page 2 of 3
3

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

circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel at this time. Accordingly, Plaintiff second 

motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED, without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 11, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00250-DAD-SAB Document 87 Filed 07/11/16 Page 3 of 3