Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01020/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01020-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SANDI DAWN NIEVES,

Plaintiff,

v.

KATHLEEN ALLISON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:22-cv-01020-CDB (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(ECF Nos. 3, 10)

Plaintiff Sandi Dawn Nieves is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 

action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 15, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for the 

appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 3.) As grounds, Plaintiff states that she is indigent and is 

unable to hire counsel. (Id.) Plaintiff filed a duplicate of the motion on September 13, 2022. 

(ECF No. 10.) 

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

Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997). The district courts lack authority to require 

counsel to represent indigent prisoners in Section 1983 cases. Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the S.

Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). 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.

///

Case 1:22-cv-01020-KES-CDB Document 15 Filed 10/28/22 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

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 

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 finds that this case does not present the required exceptional circumstances. 

Even assuming that Plaintiff is not well-versed in the law and that she has made serious 

allegations that, if proved, would entitle her to relief, this case is not exceptional. The Court is 

faced with similar cases almost daily. While the Court recognizes that Plaintiff is at a 

disadvantage due to her pro se status and her incarceration, the test is not whether Plaintiff would 

benefit from the appointment of counsel. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th 

Cir. 1986) (“Most actions require development of further facts during litigation and a pro se

litigant will seldom be in a position to investigate easily the facts necessary to support the case.”) 

The test is whether exceptional circumstances exist, and here, they do not. 

At this stage of the proceedings, the Court cannot determine whether Plaintiff is likely to 

proceed on the merits of her claim. Circumstances common to most prisoners, such as lack of 

legal education and limited law library access, do not establish exceptional circumstances that 

would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. Also, based on a review of the 

record in this case, the Court finds that Plaintiff can adequately articulate her claims. Plaintiff is 

advised that in ruling on any matters, the Court will thoroughly review the record of the case and 

research the relevant legal standards. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions for the appointment of 

counsel, (ECF Nos. 3, 10), are DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 28, 2022 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-01020-KES-CDB Document 15 Filed 10/28/22 Page 2 of 2