Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01582/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01582-5/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

ALEJANDRO JOSE MORALES,

Plaintiff,

v.

HEZEKIAH SHERWOOD, et al.,

Defendants.

1:13-cv-01582-AWI-GSA (PC) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

(Document# 20)

On June 18, 2014, 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 

Aexceptional 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 1:13-cv-01582-DAD-EPG Document 21 Filed 06/19/14 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. At this 

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

succeed on the merits. Plaintiff=s second amended complaint, filed on April 23, 2014, awaits 

screening by the court. (Doc. 19.) Until the second amended complaint is screened and the court 

finds that Plaintiff states cognizable claims, service of process shall not be initiated upon the 

defendants. Moreover, based on a review of the record in this case, the court does not find that 

plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. See id. Plaintiff argues that he cannot afford 

counsel and his resources are limited because he is incarcerated. While these conditions make 

litigation challenging, they do not amount to exceptional circumstances under the law. The court 

is faced with similar cases 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: June 19, 2014 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01582-DAD-EPG Document 21 Filed 06/19/14 Page 2 of 2