Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01662/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01662-14/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

MICHAEL J. SULLIVAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

BITER, et al.,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:12-cv-01662-AWI-EPG (PC) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

(ECF No. 80)

On January 6, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. 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 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 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 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).

Case 1:12-cv-01662-AWI-EPG Document 81 Filed 01/10/17 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

In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. The 

mere fact that Plaintiff is unable to locate one of the defendants at this stage in the litigation does 

not justify the appointment of counsel; Plaintiff will have adequate opportunities to identify any 

missing defendants later in this litigation. Further, 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. Id. 

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff=s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED 

without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 10, 2017 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01662-AWI-EPG Document 81 Filed 01/10/17 Page 2 of 2