Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02006/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02006-15/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

CARLTON VAN SCOTT,

Plaintiff, 

v.

GLENDA MOORE, et al.,

Defendants.

______________________________/

2:08-cv-2006-RCF (PC) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

On April 2, 2010, plaintiff Carlton Van Scott filed a motion seeking the appointment of

counsel. (Docket No. 43.) Van Scott 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 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, 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).

Case 2:08-cv-02006-RCF Document 47 Filed 04/06/10 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-

In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even if

it is assumed that Van Scott 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. Further, the Court finds that

Van Scott is not likely to succeed on the merits; and, based on a review of the record in this case, the

Court finds that plaintiff has been able to adequately articulate his claims. Id. 

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel (Docket No.

43) is HEREBY DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 6, 2010 /s/ Raymond C. Fisher 

UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

Sitting by Designation

Case 2:08-cv-02006-RCF Document 47 Filed 04/06/10 Page 2 of 2