Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00420/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00420-1/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

EDWARD FURNACE,

Plaintiff,

v.

COPE, et al,

Defendant.

1:16-cv-0420-BAM (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE

(ECF No. 11)

Plaintiff Edward Furance (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. On May 18, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the 

appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 11.) He argues that he requires appointed counsel to assist with 

gaining the identity of a John Doe defendant in time to comply with the deadline for service of 

the defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). He further argues that he has a Sixth 

Amendment right to counsel, and that appointing him counsel serves the public interest and the 

efficient and proper administration of justice. 

The Court reminds Plaintiff that this is a civil action, not a criminal action. Plaintiff 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 Plaintiff 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern 

Case 1:16-cv-00420-DAD-BAM Document 12 Filed 06/01/16 Page 1 of 3
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

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).

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 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. 

Id. 

Regarding Plaintiff’s argument that he requires appointed counsel to assist with service of 

the complaint, that argument is premature. The Court is required to screen complaints brought by 

prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental 

entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Thus, Plaintiff’s complaint cannot be served until it has been 

properly screened. If Plaintiff’s complaint survives screening, a subsequent order regarding 

service will follow. Thus, Plaintiff’s duties regarding service of the complaint, including under 

Rule 4(m), have not yet been triggered in this matter.

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 1:16-cv-00420-DAD-BAM Document 12 Filed 06/01/16 Page 2 of 3
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

3

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff=s motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 11) 

is HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 31, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00420-DAD-BAM Document 12 Filed 06/01/16 Page 3 of 3