Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00346/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00346-2/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JASON PATTEN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

J. WALKER, et al,

Defendants. 

________________________________/

1:13-cv-00346-GSA (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

( #11)

On June 28, 2013, plaintiff filed a renewed motion seeking the appointment of counsel. 

Plaintiff argues that counsel should be appointed because he has been denied access to the law

library, he was denied access to legal materials, his related case in the Northern District of

California is likely to succeed on the merits, and he wishes to consolidate his cases in the Eastern,

Central, and Northern Districts. In the alternative, plaintiff requests appointment of counsel for the

limited purpose of assisting with a motion to consolidate his cases.

As plaintiff was previously advised, 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. 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

-1-

Case 1:13-cv-00346-RRB Document 12 Filed 07/09/13 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

reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek volunteer counsel

onlyin the most serious and exceptional cases. In determiningwhether “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. The fact

that plaintiff wishes to bring a motion to consolidate his cases, that plaintiff’s related case may be

likely to succeed on the merits, or that plaintiff presently lacks access to legal materials and the law

library, does not cause this case to be exceptional. Plaintiff’s claim that defendants provided him

with inadequate dental treatment is not complex, and this court is faced with similar cases almost

daily. At this early stage in the proceedings, the court cannot make a determination that plaintiff

is likely to succeed on the merits, and based on a review of the record in this case, the court does

not find that plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims or respond to court orders. Id. 

Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s renewed motion for the appointment of

counsel is HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 8, 2013 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

220hhe UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-2-

Case 1:13-cv-00346-RRB Document 12 Filed 07/09/13 Page 2 of 2