Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01536/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01536-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL PIAZZA,

Plaintiff,

v.

D.R. BRACKETT, DEREK PERRY,

Defendants.

_____________________________________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

11-cv-01536-AWI-BAM 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Michael Piazza is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

this civil rights action pursuant to Title 42 of the United States Code section 1983. On October

31, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. (Doc. 7.)

DISCUSSION

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 Title 28 of the United States Code section 1915(e)(1). Mallard v.

United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct.

1

Case 1:11-cv-01536-BAM Document 8 Filed 11/07/11 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

1814, 1816 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, however, the Court may request the

voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520,

1525 (9th Cir. 1997). 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

quotations & citations omitted).

In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even

if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious

allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. The Court is

faced with similar cases almost daily. 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. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff 's motion for the appointment of counsel is

hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November 7, 2011 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe 

10c20k UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:11-cv-01536-BAM Document 8 Filed 11/07/11 Page 2 of 2