Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01662/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01662-4/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

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

Plaintiff Randy James Geren is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983.

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s second request for appointment of counsel, filed 

January 31, 2020.

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 any 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.

///

RANDY JAMES GEREN,

 Plaintiff,

v.

R. FISHER, et.al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:19-cv-01662-DAD-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND 

REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

[ECF No. 15]

Case 1:19-cv-01662-DAD-SAB Document 16 Filed 02/04/20 Page 1 of 2
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

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 test for exceptional circumstances requires the Court to evaluate the Plaintiff’s 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. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 

1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). 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. In the present case, 

the Court does not find extraordinary circumstances to warrant appointment of counsel. The Court 

previously screened Plaintiff’s complaint and granted him leave to amend. Plaintiff filed a first 

amended complaint on January 31, 2020, which is pending screening by the Court. However, based 

on a cursory review of the first amended complaint, the Court does not find the required exceptional 

circumstances. Although Plaintiff contends that he suffers from brain injury, Plaintiff demonstrates 

literacy and an ability to communicate through pleadings and motions to sufficiently articulate his 

claims pro se. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (affirming denial of appointment 

of counsel where a plaintiff demonstrates ability to effectively present case). As a result, the Court is 

precluded from making a finding that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. Accordingly, 

Plaintiff’s second motion for appointment of counsel will be denied without prejudice. 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 3, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01662-DAD-SAB Document 16 Filed 02/04/20 Page 2 of 2