Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01354/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01354-5/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

MOU SENG SEE,

Plaintiff,

v.

RIVAS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:23-cv-01354-KES-BAM (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(ECF No. 29)

Plaintiff Mou Seng See (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on 

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against Defendants Rivas, Roman, Rivera, and Dorado for 

deliberate indifference to the need for medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, filed April 4, 

2024. (ECF No. 29.) Plaintiff requests appointment of counsel because he believes something 

illegal happened in this incident, and professional assistance may be required to protect his 

interests and prove his claim the right way within the law. (Id.)

Plaintiff is informed that he does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in 

this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), rev’d in part on other 

grounds, 154 F.3d 952, 954 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998), and the court cannot require an attorney to 

represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the S. Dist. 

Case 1:23-cv-01354-KES-BAM Document 30 Filed 04/08/24 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

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 

“exceptional circumstances exist, a 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 Court has considered Plaintiff’s request, but does not find the required exceptional 

circumstances. Even if it is assumed that Plaintiff has made serious allegations which, if proved, 

would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This Court is faced with similar cases filed 

almost daily by prisoners who must litigate their cases without the assistance of counsel.

Furthermore, at this stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that 

Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. Although Plaintiff’s complaint was found to state 

cognizable claims, this does not mean there is a likelihood of success on the merits. Finally, 

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

adequately articulate his claims.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel, (ECF No. 29), is HEREBY DENIED, 

without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 8, 2024 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-01354-KES-BAM Document 30 Filed 04/08/24 Page 2 of 2