Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01758/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01758-1/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

FRANK JOSEPH POPOVICH,

Plaintiff,

v.

NGOZI IGBINOSA, et al.,

Defendants.

1:19-cv-01758 GSA (PC) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

(Document# 8 & 9)

On December 30, 2019 and December 31, 2019, plaintiff filed identical motions 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, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (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, the district court 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).

Case 1:19-cv-01758-AWI-GSA Document 12 Filed 01/02/20 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 does not find the required exceptional circumstances. 

Plaintiff’s indigency does not make his case exceptional. At this early stage in the proceedings, 

the court cannot make a determination that plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. Plaintiff 

filed the Complaint on December 14, 2019, less than a month ago, and the Complaint awaits the 

court’s screening required under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Thus, to date the court has not found any 

cognizable claims in plaintiff’s Complaint for which to initiate service of process, and no other 

parties have yet appeared. Plaintiff’s medical and retaliation claims are not complex. Moreover, 

based on a review of the record in this case, the court finds that plaintiff can adequately articulate 

his claims. Therefore, plaintiff’s motions shall be denied without prejudice to renewal of the 

motion at a later stage of the proceedings. 

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motions for the appointment of counsel are

HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 2, 2020 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01758-AWI-GSA Document 12 Filed 01/02/20 Page 2 of 2