Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00136/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00136-15/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN RAY DYNES,

Plaintiff,

v.

C/O JUAN MEDINA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:08-cv-00136-GSA PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Doc. 57)

This is a civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Plaintiff John Ray Dynes,

a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at the Fresno

County Jail. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed April 24, 2008,

against Defendants Medina and Williams for use of excessive physical force, in violation of the

Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff’s claim arises from an incident which occurred while he was

incarcerated at Kern Valley State Prison. This matter is set for a telephonic trial confirmation

hearing on February 24, 2010, and jury trial on March 15, 2010. 

On January 26, 2010, 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 

///

1

Case 1:08-cv-00136-GSA Document 60 Filed 02/01/10 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

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. The Court is faced with

similar cases almost daily. The issue in this case is whether Defendants used excessive physical

force against Plaintiff. There have been no dispositive motions and no other proceeding which

would allow the Court to evaluate the evidence and make a determination whether it believes

Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. Further, based on a review of the record in this case, the

Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id. The legal claim and

issues are not complex, and will mostly likely come down to an issue of witness credibility, which

the jury will consider.

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

DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 29, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:08-cv-00136-GSA Document 60 Filed 02/01/10 Page 2 of 2