Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01250/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01250-3/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 John Eric Williams, also known as Michael J. Coleman (“Plaintiff”), is a state 

prisoner proceeding pro se in this this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has 

consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 6.) 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 13.) 

Plaintiff explains that he is unable to afford counsel, his imprisonment limits his ability to litigate, his 

case is complex and meritorious, and he has limited knowledge of the law and limited access to legal 

research. Plaintiff argues that he might suffer retaliation from prison officials for investigating his 

claim. He further asserts that the case may be strongly disputed by defendants, and require depositions 

and evidence better accessed by counsel.

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

v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an attorney to 

JOHN ERIC WILLIAMS,

also known as Michael J. Coleman

 Plaintiff,

v.

L. LOZANO, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01250-BAM (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT 

COUNSEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(ECF No. 13)

Case 1:15-cv-01250-AWI-BAM Document 15 Filed 08/17/16 Page 1 of 2
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

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).

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, given Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim thus far, the Court cannot find any 

likelihood of success on the merits. Also, based on a review of the record in this case, the court does 

not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id. Although Plaintiff has not yet stated a 

cognizable claim, his arguments, pleadings, and motions are comprehensible, and he was granted 

leave to amend his complaint to further attempt to articulate a cognizable claim. He has since 

submitted a timely-filed amended complaint. Plaintiff’s amended complaint will be screened in due 

course. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel 

(ECF No. 13) is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 16, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01250-AWI-BAM Document 15 Filed 08/17/16 Page 2 of 2