Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01199/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01199-16/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

Plaintiff Avery Hypolite is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s eighth motion for appointment of counsel, filed 

December 13, 2016. This case is currently set for jury on May 23, 2017, before Chief District Judge 

Lawrence J. O’Neill. 

As Plaintiff is well aware, there is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, 

Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require any 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 (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.

AVERY HYPOLITE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

R. ZAMORA,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01199-LJO-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EIGHTH 

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

[ECF No. 61]

Case 1:14-cv-01199-LJO-SAB Document 62 Filed 12/14/16 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

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 on 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). 

As with Plaintiff’s prior motions, the Court does find that the interests of justice or exceptional 

circumstances warrant appointment of counsel. LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987); 

Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff is proceeding on a claim of excessive 

force and the legal issues present in this action are not complex, and Plaintiff has thoroughly set forth 

his allegations in the complaint and filed several motions in the action. Plaintiff’s circumstances are 

no different than any other prisoner, and Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances 

to warrant the appointment of voluntary counsel in this action. While a pro se litigant may be better 

served with the assistance of counsel, so long as a pro se litigant, such as Plaintiff in this instance, is 

able to “articulate his claims against the relative complexity of the matter,” the “exceptional 

circumstances” which might require the appointment of counsel do not exist. Rand v. Rowland, 113 

F.3d at 1525 (finding no abuse of discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) when district court denied 

appointment of counsel despite fact that pro se prisoner “may well have fared better-particularly in the 

realm of discovery and the securing of expert testimony.”) Circumstances common to most prisoners, 

such as lack of funds, legal education and limited law library access and other resources, do not 

establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s eighth motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 14, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01199-LJO-SAB Document 62 Filed 12/14/16 Page 2 of 2