Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-02264/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-02264-7/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

EDDIE SALAZAR,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

SULLIVAN, et al., 

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:09-cv-02264-AWI-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(ECF No. 44)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter proceeds against Defendants T. 

Schwartz, M. Kalvelage, and E. Arnold on an equal protection claim. 

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel. He argues private 

counsel should be appointed because his ability to prosecute the case is limited by: high 

blood pressure, diabetes, depression and stress disorder and related medication, restricted 

access to the law library and legal assistance from other inmates, the complexity of issues

presented and investigation and research, and his inability to afford private counsel.

Case 1:09-cv-02264-AWI-MJS Document 46 Filed 02/28/14 Page 1 of 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

2

I. LEGAL STANDARD

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

v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), partially overruled on other grounds, 154 

F.3d 952, 954 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998), and the Court can not 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). 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. However, 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 merits [and] the ability of the 

[plaintiff] to articulate his or her claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues 

involved.” Id. Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together 

before reaching a decision on request of counsel under section 1915(d). Wilborn v. 

Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th 

Cir. 2009).

The burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances is on the Plaintiff. See e.g., 

Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970 (plaintiff “has not made the requisite showing of exceptional 

circumstances for the appointment of counsel”).

II. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff has not supported the required exceptional circumstances. The Court can

not make a determination at this stage of the litigation that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on 

the merits. The single equal protection claim in issue does not appear to be novel or unduly 

complex. The facts alleged to date appear straightforward. The deadlines for discovery and 

dispositive pretrial motions have passed. 

Even if it is 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 Court is faced with similar cases almost daily. 

Case 1:09-cv-02264-AWI-MJS Document 46 Filed 02/28/14 Page 2 of 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

3

The papers filed by Plaintiff in this case continue to reflect an appreciation of the 

legal issues and standards and an ability to express same adequately in writing. At present, 

the Court is unable to find that, even considering Plaintiff’s medical condition and treatment, 

he is unable adequately to articulate his claim.

Finally, it is not clear Plaintiff has exhausted diligent efforts to secure counsel.

1

III. ORDER

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel

(ECF No. 44) is DENIED without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 28, 2014 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC _Signature- END:

12eob4

 

1 See e.g., Thornton v. Schwarzenegger, 2011 WL 90320, *3–4 (S.D. Cal. January 11, 2011) (cases cited).

Case 1:09-cv-02264-AWI-MJS Document 46 Filed 02/28/14 Page 3 of 3