Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00064/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00064-0/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

MARK E. DORSEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. MOORE, et al,

Defendant.

1:15-cv-00064-DAD-BAM (PC) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

(ECF No. 32)

Plaintiff Mark E. Dorsey (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action currently proceeds on 

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against Correctional Officers Moore, Martin and Cano for 

excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and against Correctional Officer Morelock 

and Correctional Sergeant Pease for failure to intervene in the use of excessive force in violation 

of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 7.)

On March 28, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 

32.) He notes he is a layman at the law, is receiving mental health treatment, and has difficulty 

concentrating, which can result in anxiety, stress, fatigue, and weight loss. Plaintiff also states that 

he requires the assistance of counsel with discovery procedures and motions, particularly to help 

him gather evidence about and investigate his claims. 

///

Case 1:15-cv-00064-DAD-BAM Document 35 Filed 04/05/16 Page 1 of 3
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

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 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 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. 

The case law Plaintiff cites, Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 2009), does not 

affect the Court’s ruling here. In that case, the plaintiff requested counsel arguing that he was 

likely to succeed on the merits, he had pain which limited his ability to prepare for trial, and he 

had been denied access to his legal documents. The district court proceeded to confirm that the 

plaintiff had sufficient access to his legal documents to prepare his case, and found with adequate

breaks, he was able to sufficiently prosecute his case, including at trial. The district court thus 

denied that plaintiff’s request to appoint counsel. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit in Palmer found 

that the district court’s denial of the request to appoint counsel was not an abuse of discretion in 

those circumstances. 

As noted above, Plaintiff in this case is at an early stage in the proceedings, has been able 

to adequately articulate the basis for his claims, and has not otherwise shown any exceptional 

Case 1:15-cv-00064-DAD-BAM Document 35 Filed 04/05/16 Page 2 of 3
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 3

circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel at this time. Palmer does not support his 

request for appointed counsel.

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff=s motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 32)

is HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice. The Court notes that Defendants have filed a motion to 

compel interrogatory responses, (ECF No. 30), and a response to that motion by Plaintiff is 

currently due on or before April 25, 2016. Plaintiff’s timely response is expected. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 5, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00064-DAD-BAM Document 35 Filed 04/05/16 Page 3 of 3