Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00658/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00658-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GILBERT G. AMBALONG,

Plaintiff,

v.

F. IGBINOSA, et al.,

Defendants. 

________________________________/

1:12-cv-00658-AWI-DLB (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(ECF No. 16)

On May 24, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. 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 an 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. However, Plaintiff is not currently proceeding in forma pauperis, and the Court

lacks statutory authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).

Even if Plaintiff was proceeding in forma pauperis, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that

this action warrants appointment of counsel. 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 

-1-

Case 1:12-cv-00658-AWI-DLB Document 18 Filed 06/06/13 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

must evaluate both the likelihood of success of 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 not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even

if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious

allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This Court is

faced with similar cases almost daily. Further, at this early stage in the proceedings, the Court

cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits, and based on a

review of the record in this case, the Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately

articulate his claims. Id.

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY

DENIED, without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 6, 2013 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

77e0d6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-2-

Case 1:12-cv-00658-AWI-DLB Document 18 Filed 06/06/13 Page 2 of 2