Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01633/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01633-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

WILLIE JAMISON,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

CAPELLO, et al., 

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:10-cv-01633-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(ECF No. 23)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter proceeds on an excessive force claim against Defendant 

Capello and deliberate indifference and equal protection claims against Defendants Capello 

and Kuntz and is in the discovery phase.

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel filed on April 30, 

2014. Plaintiff asserts that counsel should be appointed because: he lacks funds to retain 

private counsel, the case is complex and requires investigation and discovery, he has 

limited education and knowledge of the law, and he suffers serious medical conditions and 

related physical limitations requiring nursing care.

1

 

1

Plaintiff motion is a boilerplate request for appointment of habeas counsel.

Case 1:10-cv-01633-MJS Document 24 Filed 05/01/14 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

I. LEGAL STANDARD

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

v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), partially overruled on other grounds, 154 

F.3d 952, 954 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998), and the Court can not require an attorney to represent 

him 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). 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. However, 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 or her claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues 

involved.” Id. Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together 

before reaching a decision on request of counsel under section 1915(d). Wilborn v. 

Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th 

Cir. 2009).

The burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances is on the Plaintiff. See

Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970 (plaintiff “has not made the requisite showing of exceptional 

circumstances for the appointment of counsel”); accord, Alvarez v. Jacquez, 415 F. App’x 

830, 831 (9th Cir. 2011) (plaintiff “failed to show exceptional circumstances”); Simmons v. 

Hambly, 14 F. App’x. 918, 919 (9th Cir. 2001) (same); Davis v. Yarborough, 459 F. App’x 

601, 602 (9th Cir. 2011) (plaintiff “did not show the ‘exceptional circumstances' required to 

appoint counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).”).

II. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL DENIED

There are not exceptional circumstances supporting appointment of counsel. The 

Court cannot make a determination at this stage of the litigation that Plaintiff is likely to 

succeed on the merits. The claims alleged do not appear to be novel or unduly complex. 

The facts alleged to date appear straightforward and unlikely to involve any extensive 

Case 1:10-cv-01633-MJS Document 24 Filed 05/01/14 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

investigation and discovery. 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.

The papers filed by Plaintiff in this case reflect an appreciation of the legal issues 

and standards and an ability to express same adequately in writing. At present, the Court is 

unable to find that, even considering Plaintiff’s medical condition, he is unable adequately 

to articulate his claims.

Finally, Plaintiff makes no showing that he has exhausted diligent efforts to secure 

counsel.

2 His lack of funds alone does not demonstrate that efforts to secure counsel 

necessarily would be futile.

III. ORDER

For the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s April 30, 2014 motion for appointment of counsel is 

DENIED, without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 1, 2014 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

2 See e.g., Thornton v. Schwarzenegger, 2011 WL 90320, *3–4 (S.D. Cal. January 11, 2011) (cases cited).

Case 1:10-cv-01633-MJS Document 24 Filed 05/01/14 Page 3 of 3