Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00339/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00339-0/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

DRAKE FELDE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

D. WILKINS, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-00339-JDP

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

ECF Nos. 13, 16

Plaintiff Drake Felde, a state prisoner without counsel, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. Plaintiff has filed two motions requesting appointment of counsel. ECF Nos. 13, 16. He

submits that he has autism and ADHD, has limited access to the law library, and has not been 

able to successfully obtain an attorney. Id.

Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, see Rand 

v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds on reh’g en 

banc, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998), and the court lacks the authority to require an attorney to 

represent plaintiff, see Mallard v. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 

296, 298 (1989). We may request the voluntary assistance of counsel. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(1); Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. However, without a means to compensate counsel, the 

Case 1:19-cv-00339-NONE-HBK Document 18 Filed 03/31/20 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

court will seek volunteer counsel only in exceptional circumstances. In determining whether such 

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.” Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

We cannot conclude that exceptional circumstances requiring the appointment of counsel are 

present here. The issues raised by the complaint are not unusually complicated and, at this stage 

of the proceedings, plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. 

The court may revisit this issue at a later stage of the proceedings if the interests of justice 

so require. If plaintiff later renews his request for counsel, he should provide a detailed 

explanation of the circumstances that he believes justify appointment of counsel. Accordingly, 

plaintiff’s motions for the appointment of counsel, ECF Nos. 13, 16, are denied without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 30, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

No. 204.

Case 1:19-cv-00339-NONE-HBK Document 18 Filed 03/31/20 Page 2 of 2