Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01768/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01768-1/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

RICARDO MARTINEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. PFEIFFER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-01768-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

(ECF No. 2)

Plaintiff Ricardo Martinez is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On September 18, 2019, Plaintiff initiated the instant action in the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of California. (ECF No. 1.) On December 16, 2019, the instant 

action was transferred to this Court. (ECF No. 5.)

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, filed on 

September 18, 2019. (ECF No. 2.) Plaintiff contends that this Court should appoint counsel to 

represent him in this action because he cannot afford to hire counsel, he has a limited knowledge 

of law, he has a TABE score of 2.0, the issues involved in this case are complex, and the 

appointment of counsel would better enable to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses at 

trial. (Id.)

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

Case 1:19-cv-01768-DAD-SAB Document 11 Filed 01/02/20 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

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). Nevertheless, in certain exceptional 

circumstances, the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to § 

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, 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). 

“Neither of these considerations is dispositive and instead must be viewed together.” Palmer v. 

Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). The burden of demonstrating exceptional 

circumstances is on the plaintiff. Id.

The Court has considered Plaintiff’s request for appointed counsel, but does not find the 

required exceptional circumstances. Initially, circumstances common to most prisoners, such as 

lack of legal education, limited law library access, and lack of funds to hire counsel, do not alone 

establish the exceptional circumstances that would warrant appointment of counsel. Specifically, 

Plaintiff’s apprehension with pursuing this case on his own, while understandable, is not 

sufficient grounds for appointing 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.”). 

Further, while Plaintiff alleges that the issues involved in this case are complex, the Court 

has reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint and finds both that Plaintiff’s claim do not appear to present 

novel or complex issues of substantive law and that Plaintiff is able to clearly articulate his 

claims. Finally, since the Court has not yet screened Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court cannot 

evaluate Plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits of his claims.

///

///

Case 1:19-cv-01768-DAD-SAB Document 11 Filed 01/02/20 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

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, (ECF No. 2), is HEREBY 

DENIED, without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 2, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01768-DAD-SAB Document 11 Filed 01/02/20 Page 3 of 3