Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-01356/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-01356-12/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 James C. McCurdy 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 April 

6, 2020.

Plaintiff 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.

/ / /

/ / /

JAMES C. McCURDY,

 Plaintiff,

v.

S. KERNAN, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:17-cv-01356-NONE-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 

COUNSEL

(ECF No. 68)

Case 1:17-cv-01356-SAB Document 69 Filed 04/08/20 Page 1 of 3
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.” Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 

In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances exist to 

justify appointment of counsel. Plaintiff argues that he is not well versed in the law, has limited access 

to legal documents because he is housed in segregation and that he has made serious allegations 

which, if proved, would entitle him to relief. However, Plaintiff’s case is not exceptional. The Court 

is faced with similar cases almost daily. 

While the Court recognizes that Plaintiff is at a disadvantage due to his pro se status and his 

incarceration, the test is not whether Plaintiff would benefit from the appointment of counsel. See

Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Most actions require development of 

further facts during litigation and a pro se litigant will seldom be in a position to investigate easily the 

facts necessary to support the case.”) The test is whether exception circumstances exist and here, they 

do not. 

Plaintiff argues that his claims are complex because he has brought multiple claims alleging 

excessive force and battery but the Court sees similar claims on a regular basis. Plaintiff contends that 

his case will require him to conduct discovery and will involve conflicting testimony, but these 

circumstances exist in almost every case before the court. Although Plaintiff alleges that he has 

mental health issues, he has not identified how they issues will impact his ability to litigate this action 

and, based on the record, he has demonstrated the ability to articulate his claims and has defeated 

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust. 

Considering the nature of Plaintiff’s excessive force claims together with Plaintiff’s ability to 

articulate his claim and filings in this matter, the Court does not find exception circumstances exist to 

justify appointment of counsel. Circumstances common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal 

education and limited law library access, the need to conduct discovery, and the request for a jury trial, 

do not establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of 

Case 1:17-cv-01356-SAB Document 69 Filed 04/08/20 Page 2 of 3
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

counsel. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY DENIED, 

without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 8, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:17-cv-01356-SAB Document 69 Filed 04/08/20 Page 3 of 3