Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01710/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01710-8/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

MICHAEL ANTHONY HOWARD,

Plaintiff,

v.

SGT. ENCINAS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:18-cv-01710-DAD-EPG (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR APPOINTMENT OF PRO BONO 

COUNSEL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(ECF NO. 43)

Michael Howard (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which includes state law claims. 

On March 13, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of pro bono counsel. (ECF 

No. 43).1 Plaintiff asks for appointment of counsel because he has developmental disabilities

within the meaning of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which require therapeutic treatment 

and psychiatric medications; because he is currently housed in the SHU unit; because he is being 

denied access to the law library and legal materials; because he is not being provided with access 

to an assistant who is trained in the law; and because Plaintiff needs counsel to assist him with

gathering the evidence he needs to prove his case.

1 To the extent Plaintiff is asking the Court to order officials at his institution of confinement to provide him 

with access to the law library and legal materials, he should file a separate motion.

Case 1:18-cv-01710-DAD-EPG Document 44 Filed 03/16/20 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

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

Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 

(9th Cir. 1998), 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 (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, a 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. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

The Court will not order appointment of pro bono counsel at this time. The Court has 

reviewed the record in this case, and at this time the Court is unable to make a determination that 

Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims. Moreover, it appears that Plaintiff can 

adequately articulate his claims. 

Plaintiff is advised that he is not precluded from renewing his motion for appointment of 

pro bono counsel at a later stage of the proceedings. 

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of pro 

bono counsel is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 16, 2020 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-01710-DAD-EPG Document 44 Filed 03/16/20 Page 2 of 2