Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01684/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01684-1/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 Ricardo Martinez 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 appointment of counsel, filed 

January 14, 2020. 

As Plaintiff is aware, he 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 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.

///

RICARDO MARTINEZ

 Plaintiff,

v.

C. PFEIFFER, et.al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:19-cv-01684-DAD-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND 

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

[ECF No. 19]

Case 1:19-cv-01684-DAD-SAB Document 20 Filed 01/17/20 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

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 claims pro se in light of the complexity of the 

legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 

The test for exceptional circumstances requires the Court to evaluate the Plaintiff’s 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. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 

1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). 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. In the present case, 

the Court does not find extraordinary circumstances to warrant appointment of counsel. For the 

reasons stated in the January 7, 2020 screening order, Plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable 

constitutional claim upon which relief may be granted. As a result, the Court is precluded from 

making a finding that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. In addition, to date Plaintiff has 

adequately litigated this action. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s second motion for appointment of counsel is

be denied without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 17, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01684-DAD-SAB Document 20 Filed 01/17/20 Page 2 of 2