Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00397/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00397-10/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 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEONARD RANSOM, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

DANIEL GONZALEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

1:10-cv-00397 AWI GSA (PC) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

(Document# 65)

On February 3, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. 

Plaintiff 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. 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 

Aexceptional 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 1:10-cv-00397-AWI-EPG Document 68 Filed 02/14/14 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. 

Plaintiff maintains that he is temporarily unable to access legal materials in the law library, has 

been denied access to his property, is subject to frequent transfers, and has been harassed. These 

conditions do not make this case exceptional. A review of the record in this case shows that 

plaintiff is responsive, adequately communicates, and is able to articulate his claims. The court 

notes that plaintiff has filed other cases pro se and appears able to navigate the federal court 

system. The legal issues in this case B whether defendants failed to protect plaintiff and used 

excessive force against him B are not complex, and this court is faced with similar cases almost 

daily. Further, at this stage in the proceedings, the court cannot make a determination that 

plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. Id. 

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff=s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY 

DENIED, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 13, 2014 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00397-AWI-EPG Document 68 Filed 02/14/14 Page 2 of 2