Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00109/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00109-0/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

NIKKO JAVOR QUARLES,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON

CORCORAN, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-00109-AWI-JDP

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

ECF Nos. 8, 9

Plaintiff Nikko Javor Quarles is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil

rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 8 and July 11, 2019, plaintiff moved for

the appointment of counsel. ECF Nos. 8, 9. Plaintiff submits that he suffers from medical 

ailments and that other inmates have helped him litigate. 

Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, see Rand 

v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds on reh’g en 

banc, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998), and the court lacks the authority to require an attorney to 

represent plaintiff, see Mallard v. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 

296, 298 (1989). This court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel. See 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(1); Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. However, without a means to compensate counsel, the court 

Case 1:19-cv-00109-AWI-HBK Document 15 Filed 02/10/20 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

will seek volunteer counsel only in exceptional circumstances. In determining whether such 

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.” Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

The court cannot conclude that exceptional circumstances requiring the appointment of counsel 

are present here. The allegations in the complaint are not unusually complicated and, based on a 

review of the record, plaintiff appears able to articulate his claims adequately. In addition, at this 

stage in the proceedings, plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. 

The court may revisit this issue at a later stage of the proceedings if the interests of justice 

so require. If plaintiff later renews his request for counsel, he should provide a detailed 

explanation of the circumstances that he believes justify appointment of counsel. Accordingly, 

plaintiff’s motions for the appointment of counsel, ECF Nos. 8, 9, are denied without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 9, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

No. 204.

Case 1:19-cv-00109-AWI-HBK Document 15 Filed 02/10/20 Page 2 of 2