Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00111/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00111-10/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

MICHEAL STEVEN KING,

Plaintiff,

v.

S. DEATHRIAGE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-00111-LJO-SAB-PC

ORDER DENYING SECOND MOTION 

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(ECF No. 51)

Plaintiff Michael Steven King is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case is set for a jury trial on Plaintiff’s claims 

against Defendants Deathriage, Martinez, and Briones for excessive force in violation of the 

Eighth Amendment. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s second motion for the appointment of counsel, 

filed January 9, 2017 (ECF No. 51.) In support of his request, Plaintiff states that he is indigent, 

incarcerated, without funds to retain counsel, not a lawyer, and does not know how to speak in a 

jury trial.

As Plaintiff was previously informed, he 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. 

Case 1:14-cv-00111-SAB Document 54 Filed 01/11/17 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

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. 

Plaintiff’s incarcerated status, lack of legal knowledge, and lack of funds are not sufficient to 

show exceptional circumstances under the relevant standards. Moreover, the excessive force 

claims in this case do not raise particularly complex issues, and based on a review of the record, 

the Court finds that Plaintiff can adequately articulate those claims, including because Plaintiff 

was able to successfully oppose summary judgment on the majority of his claims. Finally, 

although this matter will proceed on a jury trial due to the genuinely disputed issues of fact here, 

the Court does not find any likelihood of success on the merits.

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s second motion for the appointment of counsel, filed 

January 9, 2017 (ECF No. 51) is HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 11, 2017 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00111-SAB Document 54 Filed 01/11/17 Page 2 of 2