Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01640/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01640-8/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

THOMAS WEBSTER,

Plaintiff,

v.

HASKINS,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:18-cv-01640-BAM (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT 

COUNSEL

(ECF No. 44)

Plaintiff Thomas Webster (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma 

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

California Welfare Institutions Code § 6600 et seq. are civil detainees and are not prisoners 

within the meaning of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1140 

(9th Cir. 2000). This action proceeds against Defendant Haskins for denial of adequate medical 

care in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. All parties have consented to Magistrate Judge 

jurisdiction. (ECF Nos. 22, 37.)

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel, filed May 13, 2020. 

(ECF No. 44.) In his motion, Plaintiff states that he is unable to afford counsel, and his 

imprisonment will greatly limit his ability to litigate. In addition, he argues that the issues 

involved in this case are complex, and will require significant research and investigation, and 

Plaintiff has limited access to the law library and limited knowledge of law. A trial in this case 

will likely involve conflicting testimony, and counsel would better enable Plaintiff to present 

evidence and cross examine witnesses. Plaintiff states that he has made repeated efforts to obtain 

Case 1:18-cv-01640-BAM Document 45 Filed 05/14/20 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

a lawyer, and includes names of attorneys he has contacted. Plaintiff therefore requests that the 

Court appoint a member of the State Bar of California as counsel in this case. (Id.)

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

Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), rev’d in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952, 954 

n.1 (9th Cir. 1998), and the court cannot require an attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the S. Dist. 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, a 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.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 

The Court has considered Plaintiff’s request, but 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 filed by prisoners and civil detainees who are proceeding 

pro se and in forma pauperis almost daily. These litigants also must conduct legal research and 

learn to follow Court orders without the assistance of counsel. Finally, based on a review of the

record in this case, the Court finds that Plaintiff can adequately articulate his claims.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel, (ECF No. 44), is HEREBY DENIED, 

without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 14, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-01640-BAM Document 45 Filed 05/14/20 Page 2 of 2