Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01248/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01248-28/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 Horace Thomas is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. 

On August 17, 2015, Plaintiff filed a fourth motion for the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff 

previously filed three motions for appointment of counsel, which were denied. (ECF Nos. 18, 19, 25, 

26, 117, 118.) 

There is no 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.

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 

HORACE THOMAS, a.k.a Horace Bell,

 Plaintiff,

v.

S HEBERLING, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-01248-AWI-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S FOURTH 

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

[ECF No. 120]

Case 1:12-cv-01248-AWI-SAB Document 122 Filed 08/18/15 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

“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). 

In the present case, the Court does find that neither the interests of justice nor exceptional 

circumstances warrant appointment of counsel at this time. LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th 

Cir. 1987); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff merely alludes in one 

sentence to the fact that he is diabetic and is suffering from diabetic nerve pain in feet. Plaintiff has 

not presented exceptional circumstances to warrant the appointment of counsel. Even considering 

Plaintiff’s diabetic condition, he is presently able to file documents in this case and articulate his 

claims. While a pro se litigant may be better served with the assistance of counsel, so long as a pro se 

litigant, such as Plaintiff in this instance, is able to “articulate his claims against the relative 

complexity of the matter,” the “exceptional circumstances” which might require the appointment of 

counsel do not exist. Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d at 1525 (finding no abuse of discretion under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e) when district court denied appointment of counsel despite fact that pro se prisoner 

“may well have fared better-particularly in the realm of discovery and the securing of expert 

testimony.”) 

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel must be DENIED, 

without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 18, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01248-AWI-SAB Document 122 Filed 08/18/15 Page 2 of 2