Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00253/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00253-5/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

DEAN MARTIN SEALEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

DUSTIN FAGUNDES, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:23-cv-00253-ADA-EPG

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT 

PRO BONO COUNSEL

(ECF No. 29)

Plaintiff Dean Martin Sealey is a state prisoner appearing pro se in this civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case proceeds on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment conditions of 

confinement claims against Defendants Steve Souza and Dustin Fagundes. (ECF Nos. 11, 25). 

Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to appoint pro bono counsel. (ECF No. 29). As 

grounds, Plaintiff states that he is incarcerated and cannot afford an attorney.

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

Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 

(9th Cir. 1998), and the Court cannot require an 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. 

Case 1:23-cv-00253-KES-EPG Document 30 Filed 10/26/23 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

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 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. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

The Court will not order appointment of pro bono counsel at this time. The Court has 

reviewed the record in this case and at this time the Court is unable to determine that Plaintiff is 

likely to succeed on the merits of his claims. Moreover, it appears that Plaintiff can adequately 

articulate his claims. 

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of pro 

bono counsel (ECF No. 29) is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 26, 2023 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-00253-KES-EPG Document 30 Filed 10/26/23 Page 2 of 2