Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01655/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01655-14/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LOUIS BRANCH,

Plaintiff,

vs.

N. GRANNIS, et al.,

Defendants. 

________________________________/

1:08-cv-01655-AWI-GSA (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

( #75)

On December 21, 2012, 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).

-1-

Case 1:08-cv-01655-SAB Document 79 Filed 01/04/13 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

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

this stage in the proceedings, the court cannot make a determination that plaintiff is likely to

succeed on the merits. The case is presently in the discovery phase, and plaintiff has not yet

identified two out of three of his defendants to enable service of process upon them. Based on

the record in this case, the court does not find that plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his

claims. Further, the legal issues in this case – whether defendants failed to protect plaintiff and

retaliated against plaintiff – are not complex, and this court is faced with similar cases almost

daily. Therefore, plaintiff’s motion shall be denied without prejudice to renewal of the motion

at a later stage of the proceedings. 

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY

DENIED, without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 4, 2013 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

220hhe UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-2-

Case 1:08-cv-01655-SAB Document 79 Filed 01/04/13 Page 2 of 2