Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00250/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00250-16/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 George K. Colbert 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 third motion for the appointment of counsel, filed 

September 15, 2016. (ECF No. 86.) 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 

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 on the 

GEORGE K. COLBERT,

Plaintiff,

v.

P. CHAVEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:10-cv-00250-DAD-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 

PLAINTIFF’S THIRD MOTION FOR THE 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

[ECF No. 91]

Case 1:10-cv-00250-DAD-SAB Document 93 Filed 09/19/16 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

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 finds that neither the interests of justice nor exceptional 

circumstances warrant appointment of counsel at this time. LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th 

Cir. 1987); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). While counsel may be able to 

cross-examine witnesses at trial, so long as a pro se litigant, like Plaintiff in this case, 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-particular in the realms of discovery and 

the security of expert testimony.”) Indeed, any pro se litigant “would be better served with the 

assistance of counsel.” Id. 

In the present case, the Court finds that neither the interests of justice nor exceptional 

circumstances warrant appointment of counsel at this time. 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 against 

Defendants Chavez, Lindsey, Emard and Ramirez Flores for excessive force and retaliation and 

against Defendant Farnsworth for failure to protect, and Plaintiff has demonstrated an ability to 

articulate the factual and legal basis for his arguments and has effectively litigated this case to date. 

While a pro se litigant may be better 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 v. Rowland, 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.”) In addition, 

circumstances common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library 

access, do not establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary 

assistance of counsel. Based on the information presently before the Court, it is apparent that Plaintiff 

has the competence necessary to pursue this case to trial. Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s 

Case 1:10-cv-00250-DAD-SAB Document 93 Filed 09/19/16 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

arguments do not present exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel at this 

time. Accordingly, Plaintiff third motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED, without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 16, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00250-DAD-SAB Document 93 Filed 09/19/16 Page 3 of 3