Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00149/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00149-2/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

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

ANTHONY M. MORGAN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MARTHA MAYS, et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:16-cv-00149-BAM (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S THIRD 

MOTION REQUESTING THE

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE

(ECF No. 21)

Plaintiff Anthony M. Morgan (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case currently 

proceeds on Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Mays for delay of medical treatment in violation 

of the Eighth Amendment.

Previously in this matter, Plaintiff filed two motions seeking the appointment of counsel, 

(ECF Nos. 7, 12), each of which were denied, (ECF Nos. 8, 13.) Currently before the Court is 

Plaintiff’s third motion for the appointment of counsel in this matter, filed January 6, 2017. (ECF 

No. 21). In support of his current request, Plaintiff states that Defendant Mays has filed a 

demand for a jury trial, that this matter is complicated, and that he is indigent and has no way of 

hiring an attorney. 

As Plaintiff has been previously informed, he does not have a constitutional right to 

appointed counsel in this civil action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), 

and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent him 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 

Case 1:16-cv-00149-DAD-BAM Document 23 Filed 01/10/17 Page 1 of 2
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

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).

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, at this stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot 

find any likelihood of success on the merits. Also, based on a review of the record in this case, 

the court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s third motion for the appointment 

of counsel, filed January 6, 2017 (ECF No. 21) is DENIED, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 10, 2017 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00149-DAD-BAM Document 23 Filed 01/10/17 Page 2 of 2