Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00869/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00869-4/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

OMAR MALIK JEFFERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. NUCKLES,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:14-cv-00869-AWI-SAB-PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 

COUNSEL

(ECF NO. 25)

Plaintiff Omar Jefferson is a state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this 

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On July 29, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 25.)

Plaintiff’s first request for the appointment of counsel was denied on April 22, 2016. (ECF No. 

23.) 

Plaintiff is advised that there is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, 

Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require any 

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. 

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 

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).

Case 1:14-cv-00869-AWI-SAB Document 26 Filed 08/03/16 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

In the present case, the Court has considered Plaintiff’s moving papers, but does not find 

the required exceptional circumstances. LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987); 

Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff is proceeding on a claim of 

failure to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The legal issues present in this action 

are not complex, and Plaintiff has thoroughly set forth his arguments in the May 27, 2014, 

complaint on which this action proceeds. Plaintiff argues that he has a disability covered by the 

Americans With Disabilities Act which makes it difficult for him to read, write, or understand 

the material in his case. As noted, Plaintiff has adequately set forth his claims in the complaint, 

and has complied with all Court orders. Although Plaintiff may not be represented by a nonlawyer, he may obtain the assistance of other individuals. The Court notes that Plaintiff’s motion 

was prepared with the assistance of a Library Technical Assistant at the CSP Corcoran Law 

Library. In forma pauperis status alone does not alone entitle Plaintiff to appointed counsel. A 

statement that Plaintiff is disabled, does not, of itself, constitute exceptional circumstances. 

Plaintiff has not specified what his disability is, or specifically how that disability impedes his 

ability to comprehend Court orders and respond to them. Plaintiff does not provide enough 

information about his disability for the Court to make a determination whether the appointment 

of counsel is warranted. 

While a pro se litigant may be setter served with the assistance of counsel, so long as a 

pro se litigant, such as Plaintiff in this instance, is able to “articulate his claims against the 

relative complexity of the matter,” the “exceptional circumstances” which might require the 

appointment of counsel do not exist. Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (finding no abuse of discretion 

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 1:14-cv-00869-AWI-SAB Document 26 Filed 08/03/16 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

under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e) when district court denied appointment of counsel despite fact that pro 

se prisoner “may well have fared better – particularly in the realm of discovery and the securing 

of expert testimony.”) Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for the 

appointment of counsel is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 2, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00869-AWI-SAB Document 26 Filed 08/03/16 Page 3 of 3