Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00251/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00251-11/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

JARED KRISTOPHER RYSEDORPH,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:23-cv-00251-KES-BAM (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT

COUNSEL

(ECF No. 44)

Plaintiff Jared Kristopher Rysedorph (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and 

in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds 

on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint against Defendants Le and Banerjee for deliberate 

indifference to medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel, filed July 1, 2024. 

(ECF No. 44.) Plaintiff states that there are multiple exceptional circumstances present in this 

case that preclude Plaintiff from adequately presenting, litigating, and ultimately pursuing his 

goal of settling this case without the assistance of legal counsel. As there are many claims that 

Defendants deny, extensive documentary discovery, depositions of prison officials, and access to 

witnesses Plaintiff can no longer reach will most likely be necessary in order to prove those 

claims. Plaintiff has no idea how to do this stuff. It is nearly impossible for one who is unlettered 

in the law to argue issues regarding expert witnesses, personal involvement of multiple 

Case 1:23-cv-00251-KES-BAM Document 45 Filed 07/02/24 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

defendants, the complex defense of qualified immunity, and the denial of Plaintiff’s 

accommodations under federal disability statutes. Plaintiff lacks experience or education of 

almost any legal principles, issues, and methods. Plaintiff only recently obtained a GED. 

Plaintiff suffers from multiple mental and physical disabilities that push the proper handling of 

such a complex case even further out of reach, including attention deficit disorder, major 

depressive disorder, many complications of his celiac disease, and impaired dexterity of his 

dominant hand. Plaintiff has sought to obtain the assistance of counsel from multiple attorneys, 

and all of them have either declined to assist or have not responded. (Id.)

Defendants have not yet had the opportunity to respond to Plaintiff’s motion, but the 

Court finds a response unnecessary. The motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

Plaintiff is informed that he does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in 

this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), rev’d in part on other 

grounds, 154 F.3d 952, 954 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998), and the court cannot require an attorney to 

represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the S. Dist. 

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 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).

The Court has considered Plaintiff’s request, but does not find the required exceptional 

circumstances. Even if it is assumed that Plaintiff has made serious allegations which, if proved, 

would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This Court is faced with similar cases filed 

almost daily by prisoners suffering from serious mental and physical disabilities who must also 

conduct legal research, obtain discovery, and litigate their cases without the assistance of counsel

and with limited access to the law library.

Case 1:23-cv-00251-KES-BAM Document 45 Filed 07/02/24 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

Furthermore, at this stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that 

Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. Although Plaintiff’s complaint was screened and 

found to state cognizable claims, this does not mean that Plaintiff’s claims are likely to succeed 

on the merits. Finally, based on a review of the record in this case, the Court does not find that 

Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel, (ECF No. 44), is HEREBY DENIED, 

without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 2, 2024 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-00251-KES-BAM Document 45 Filed 07/02/24 Page 3 of 3