Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01320/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01320-6/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

BINH TRAN, 

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

M. JUNIOUS, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:14-cv-01320-EPG-PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(ECF No. 17.)

On April 7, 2016, 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 (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 

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 1:14-cv-01320-DAD-EPG Document 20 Filed 05/09/16 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

In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. At 

this stage of the proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to 

succeed on the merits. While the Court has screened Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint 

and “finds that it states claims against Defendant Smith for violation of the Eighth Amendment 

and negligence,” this finding is not a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the 

merits. (ECF No. 16 at 6:27-28.) Moreover, to date Defendant Smith has not been served or 

appeared in this action. Plaintiff’s claims do not appear complex, and based on a review of the 

record in this case, it appears that Plaintiff can 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.

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of 

counsel is HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 6, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01320-DAD-EPG Document 20 Filed 05/09/16 Page 2 of 2