Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00959/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00959-3/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 Enrique Ortiz is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On January 29, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff does not 

have a 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 

ENRIQUE ORTIZ,

 Plaintiff,

v.

AVENAL STATE PRISON, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-00959-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE

[ECF No. 24]

Case 1:13-cv-00959-DAD-SAB Document 25 Filed 01/30/15 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

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 

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. Plaintiff alleges an Eighth Amendment 

claim against Defendant Marmolego regarding a strip search. The legal issues present in this action 

are not complex, and Plaintiff has thoroughly set forth his allegations in the complaint. At this early 

stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on 

the merits, and based on a review of the record in this case, the Court does not find that plaintiff 

cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id. In addition, circumstances common to most prisoners, 

such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not establish exceptional 

circumstances that warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. 

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY 

DENIED, without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 30, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00959-DAD-SAB Document 25 Filed 01/30/15 Page 2 of 2