Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00478/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00478-3/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

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

PERRY WASHINGTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

FRESNO COUNTY SHERIFF, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:19-cv-00478-AWI-JLT (PC)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME AND DENYING 

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 

COUNSEL

(Doc. 12)

Plaintiff requests a 60-day extension of time to comply with the Court’s screening order, 

(Doc. 11). (Doc. 12.) Plaintiff states that he is attempting to retrieve relevant documents from his 

former attorney. (Id.) Good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff 60 days to file a first 

amended complaint.

Plaintiff also requests the appointment of counsel. (Id.) Plaintiffs do not have a 

constitutional right to appointed counsel in section 1983 actions, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 

1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent plaintiffs under 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 304-05 (1989). However, 

in “exceptional circumstances,” the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel 

pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.

Given that the Court has no reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the 

Court will seek volunteer counsel only in extraordinary cases. In determining whether “exceptional

Case 1:19-cv-00478-AWI-JLT Document 13 Filed 01/09/20 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

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 does not find the required exceptional circumstances at this time. Even if it is 

assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and has made serious allegations that, if 

proven, would entitle him to relief, his case is not extraordinary. The Court is faced with similar 

cases almost daily. In addition, at this early stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a 

determination on whether Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits; and, based on a review of 

the records in this case, the Court does not currently find that Plaintiff cannot adequately 

articulate his claims. See id. For these reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for the 

appointment of counsel without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 9, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00478-AWI-JLT Document 13 Filed 01/09/20 Page 2 of 2