Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01551/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01551-0/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

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

BENJAMIN K. TOSCANO,

Plaintiff,

 v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT 

OF CORRECTIONS AND 

REHABILITATION, et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:16-cv-01551-BAM (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

REQUESTING THE APPOINTMENT OF 

COUNSEL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(ECF No. 3)

Plaintiff Benjamin K. Toscano (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this 

action on October 3, 2016, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of 

California. (ECF No. 1). This action was subsequently transferred to this district court on 

October 14, 2016. (ECF No. 5.)

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

October 3, 2016. (ECF No. 3.) In support, Plaintiff states that he is unable to afford counsel, and 

he cites some legal authorities. 

Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this civil 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, 109 S. Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in 

Case 1:16-cv-01551-AWI-BAM Document 8 Filed 10/18/16 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

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).

In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. 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. Further, at this early stage in the proceedings, the Court 

cannot find any likelihood of success on the merits. Plaintiff’s complaint has not yet been 

screened as required, and thus the case does not yet proceed on any cognizable claims. Also, 

based on a review of the limited record in this case, the court does not find that Plaintiff cannot 

adequately articulate his claims. Thus, the Court does not find this to be a serious and 

exceptional case necessitating the appointment of counsel at this time.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of 

counsel (ECF No. 3) is DENIED, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 18, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01551-AWI-BAM Document 8 Filed 10/18/16 Page 2 of 2