Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05079/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05079-10/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

HUNG DUONG NGUON,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. CLARK, et. al,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 04 5079 AWI SMS P 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (Doc. 39.) 

Hung Duong Nguon (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

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

On November 21, 2005, Plaintiff filed a Motion for the Appointment of Counsel wherein

he demands that the Court appoint him counsel as he has a right to counsel under the

Constitution. 

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require

counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States District Court

for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the

court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). 

Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, this court will seek

volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases.

Case 1:04-cv-05079-LJO -SMS Document 44 Filed 12/13/05 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

Plaintiff’s justification for the need for counsel is identical to that of most incarcerated

inmates filing civil rights actions in federal courts across the Country. While it is true that

Plaintiff has a right to counsel, there is no law that requires the Court to appoint counsel at the

government’s expense in a civil case. The Court simply does not have the financial resources to

compensate counsel in every case wherein the Plaintiff is inexperienced in the law. Thus, the

Court will appoint counsel in only the most serious and exception circumstances. The Court

does not find these circumstances in this case. 

In accordance with the above, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for the

appointment of counsel, filed November 21, 2005, is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 12, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05079-LJO -SMS Document 44 Filed 12/13/05 Page 2 of 2