Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00925/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00925-31/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

C. DWAYNE GILMORE,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. LOCKARD, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:12-cv-00925-LJO-SAB PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND 

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 

COUNSEL

(ECF NO. 182)

Plaintiff C. Dwayne Gilmore a state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On March 21, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for the appointment of counsel. (ECF No.

182.) Plaintiff’s first motion for appointment of counsel was denied on July 9, 2015. (ECF No. 

132.) 

Plaintiff is advised that 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 195(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 

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).

Case 1:12-cv-00925-JLT-SAB Document 183 Filed 03/24/16 Page 1 of 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

2

In the present case, the Court has considered Plaintiff’s moving papers, but does not find 

the required exceptional circumstances. LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987); 

Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff is proceeding on claims of 

excessive force and denial of medical care. The legal issues present in this action are not 

complex, and Plaintiff has thoroughly set forth his arguments in the complaint filed in this 

action. Plaintiff argues that there is a settlement conference set for May 13, 2016, and that if this 

case does not settle it will be set for trial. Plaintiff argues that “it would benefit Plaintiff, 

Defendants and the Court by expediting pretrial conference and conducting trial proceedings, by 

appointing counsel to represent Plaintiff.” (ECF No. 182, 5:22-24.) In forma pauperis status 

alone does not alone entitle Plaintiff to appointed counsel. That a case is set for jury trial does 

not constitute exceptional circumstances. 

While a pro se litigant may be setter 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, 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.”) Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for the 

appointment of counsel is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 23, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00925-JLT-SAB Document 183 Filed 03/24/16 Page 2 of 2