Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00247/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00247-18/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

DWAYNE S. MONTGOMERY,

Plaintiff,

v.

I. SANCHEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

1:13-cv-00247-LJO-DLB-(PC) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

(Document# 95)

On June 23, 2015, 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-00247-LJO-DLB Document 96 Filed 06/25/15 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. 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. This Court is faced with 

similar cases almost daily. Further, based on a review of the record in this case, the Court does 

not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id. 

This action is set for trial on December 8, 2015. It involves a single claim for the use of 

excessive force against one Defendant. Plaintiff references an evidentiary hearing to address 

exhaustion in his motion, but no such hearing is set. The exhaustion issue was decided in August 

2014, when Defendants’ motion to dismiss was denied.

Plaintiff also states that he does not know where the inmate witnesses are housed. 

Defendant, or the Court, will provide that information, however.

Finally, to the extent that Plaintiff alleges that he has a mental disability, he must provide 

medical records to support a finding that his disability impacts his ability to represent himself. 

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff=s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY 

DENIED, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 25, 2015 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00247-LJO-DLB Document 96 Filed 06/25/15 Page 2 of 2