Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00715/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00715-2/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 Armando Abreu (“Plaintiff”) is state prisoner proceeding pro se in this action pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion seeking the appointment of pro 

bono counsel. (ECF No. 11.) In Plaintiff’s motion, he asserts that he has no physical access to the law 

library, and he has alerted prison officials to the issue and sought assistance. He further argues his case 

involves serious safety and gang issues, and that his claims are meritorious, complex, and of great 

magnitude. He notes his pro se status and need for pro bono assistance.

Plaintiff 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 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 

ARMANDO ABREU,

 Plaintiff,

v.

G. JAIME, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:16-CV-00715-BAM (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE

(ECF No. 11)

Case 1:16-cv-00715-DAD-BAM Document 12 Filed 06/30/16 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

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, 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. 

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff=s motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 11) is 

HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 30, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00715-DAD-BAM Document 12 Filed 06/30/16 Page 2 of 2