Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00457/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00457-8/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

CHRISTOPHER BRANDON DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. PORTILLO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:22-cv-00457-KES-CDB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST FOR AN INVESTIGATOR

(Doc. 41) 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Doc. 42)

Plaintiff Christopher Brandon Davis is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 

civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

I. INTRODUCTION

On February 28, 2024, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Motion for the Request for an 

Investigator.” (Doc. 41.) That same date, Plaintiff filed his third motion for the appointment of 

counsel. (Doc. 42.) 

II. DISCUSSION

Request for an Investigator

Plaintiff states he makes his request for an investigator “on the off chance this Court 

refuses [his] request for counsel.” (Doc. 41.) He maintains this action “is geographically very 

complex, especially for a pro-per prisoner who has been transferred from the prison of origin.” 

Case 1:22-cv-00457-KES-CDB Document 44 Filed 03/27/24 Page 1 of 7
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

(Id.) Plaintiff contends that circumstances made depositions, interviews, and statements “very 

difficult, near impossible.” (Id.) Plaintiff contends he “has no means of locating any of the 

inmates” or prison officials without the help of an investigator or an attorney. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff 

“conceeds [sic] that he can depose the Defendants in writing” but asserts the Defendants are 

represented by counsel and “the attorneys answer the tough questions making” depositions “a 

very unfair procedure.” (Id.) Plaintiff argues the inability to locate inmates “who have went home 

or been transferred making it impossible for [him] to receive a fair trial” without assistance. (Id.) 

Citing to out-of-circuit legal authority, Plaintiff argues the Court “must in all fairness appoint an 

Investigator ... so that he has the ability to both locate and take statements from both witnesses 

and Defendants.” (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff asks the Court to appoint an investigator “for the purpose of 

deposing the Defendants and to help find and question the many inmate witnesses who have 

either been transferred or moved.” (Id. at 4.) 

Section 1915 of Title 28 of the United States Code authorizes federal courts to permit 

commencement of a suit without prepayment of fees and costs upon a showing of indigency and 

allows indigents who are unable to pay the entire filing fee upon filing to pay in installments. See

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) & (b). However, section 1915 does not authorize or require federal courts to 

finance or subsidize a civil action or appeal by paying witness fees or other costs. Dixon v. Ylst, 

990 F.2d 478, 480 (9th Cir. 1993) (citing Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211-12 (9th Cir. 1989)). 

The expenditure of public funds on behalf of an indigent litigant is proper only when authorized 

by Congress. See Tedder, 890 F.2d at 211.

The in forma pauperis statute does not authorize the expenditure of public funds for 

investigators. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915; see also Snow v. Mar, 785 F. App'x 465, 466 (9th Cir. 2019) 

(“[T]here is no statutory authorization for a court-appointed investigator for civil litigants 

proceeding in forma pauperis”); Davood v. Jimmanz, No. 1:21-cv-013940-SAB (PC), 2021 WL 

6051735, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2021) (same); Khademi v. South Placer Co. Jail, No. 2:21-cv1498 KJM DB P, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2021) (same); Gaines v. Harbert, No. 07cv1320-

J(CAB), 2009 WL 1481327, at *1 (S.D. Cal. May 27, 2009) (denying pro se prisoner's motion for 

appointment of investigator as section 1915 does not require federal courts to pay expert fees or 

Case 1:22-cv-00457-KES-CDB Document 44 Filed 03/27/24 Page 2 of 7
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

other costs).

In sum, Plaintiff is not entitled to the appointment an investigator. 

Motion for the Appointment of Counsel

In his third request for the appointment of counsel, Plaintiff contends this case is “very 

complex” and “requires the disposition of the Defendants, also the interviews and dispositions of 

other inmates and prison officials in various different prisons.” (Doc. 42 at 1.) Plaintiff contends 

he “has already established this case has merit.” (Id. at 2, 3.) He asserts that because the 

Defendants refused to participate in an early settlement conference, “we are going to have to 

depose and interview all the Defendants in this case.” (Id.) Plaintiff states he does not have the 

“physical ability to either depose or interview any of the Defendants or witnesses.” (Id.) He 

maintains the appointment of counsel is “the only way for all the facts to be presented before the 

judge” and it is his “belief he meets the extraordinary circumstances it takes for an attorney” to be 

appointed. (Id.) Plaintiff asserts this action “requires extensive documentary evidence, 

[depositions] of prison officials, an access to witnesses we cannot get to ...” and documents 

Plaintiff “is not allowed to have.” (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff reminds the Court is “a layman of the law” 

and states he has “suffered an injustice by some very corrupt folks.” (Id. at 4.) 

As Plaintiff has been previously advised (Dos. 15, 27), plaintiffs do not have a 

constitutional right to appointed counsel in section 1983 actions. Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 

1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), rev’d in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952, 954 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998). 

Nor can the Court require an attorney to represent a party under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See 

Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 304-05 (1989). However, in “exceptional 

circumstances,” the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 

1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.

Given that the Court has no reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the 

Court will seek volunteer counsel only in extraordinary cases. In determining whether 

“exceptional circumstances exist, a 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.” Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (internal quotation marks &

Case 1:22-cv-00457-KES-CDB Document 44 Filed 03/27/24 Page 3 of 7
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

4

citations omitted).

Analysis

The Court must evaluate the likelihood of Plaintiff’s success on the merits of his claims. 

Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 

As the Court indicated in its second order denying the appointment of counsel (see Doc. 

27), while Plaintiff’s first amended complaint was screened as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) 

(see Doc. 19) it is premature to determine whether there is a likelihood of success on the merits. 

A likelihood of success on the merits determination is not the same as that required at screening; 

at screening, the Court is tasked with determining whether a plaintiff has sufficiently and 

plausibly alleged a cause of action or claim entitling the plaintiff to relief. The merits of the 

allegations are not tested, for the Court is to consider factual allegations to be true for purposes of 

screening. Therefore, despite Plaintiff’s assertions that the Court has already determined 

“this case has merit,” he is mistaken. Plaintiff’s claims were determined to be cognizable or 

plausible and no determination has been made as to their merit. 

Next, the Court must also evaluate Plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claims pro se in light 

of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. Here, as previously found, 

the Court concludes Plaintiff is able to articulate his claim in light of its complexity. More 

specifically, the Court found Plaintiff plausibly alleged First Amendment retaliation claims 

against Defendant Portillo and Defendant Brown, an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim 

against Defendant Portillo, an Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim against Defendant 

Molina, and a due process clause violation against Defendant Brown. (See Doc. 19 at 5-20.) 

LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987) (affirming district court’s denial of request 

for appointment of counsel where pleadings demonstrated petitioner had “a good understanding 

of the issues and the ability to present forcefully and coherently his contentions”).

Further, despite Plaintiff’s assertions to the contrary, the claims are not complex. Bonin v. 

Vasquez, 999 F.2d 425, 428–29 (9th Cir. 1993) (while Plaintiff may have limited knowledge of 

the law, the Court does not find the issues in this case “so complex that due process violations 

will occur absent the presence of counsel”); Andre-Gollihar v. County of San Joaquin, No. 2:09-

Case 1:22-cv-00457-KES-CDB Document 44 Filed 03/27/24 Page 4 of 7
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

5

cv-03313 MCE KJN PS, 2010 WL 2925358, at *2 (E.D. Cal. July 26, 2010) (“plaintiff’s claims 

of excessive force and wrongful death are not complex”); Crawford v. Hughes, No. 13-CV-6638-

FPG, 2017 WL 130273, at *3 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 13, 2017) (“the issues in this case—namely, the 

alleged use of excessive force, discrimination, and denial of due process at a disciplinary 

hearing—are not complex”); Headley v Fisher, No. 06 Civ. 6331 (PAC) (KNF), 2008 WL 

2676601, at *2 (July 7, 2008) (“the factual issues concerning Headley’s retaliation and due 

process claims is straightforward and not complex”); Williams v. Whitehurst, No. 4:08CV21-

SPM/AK, 2008 WL 1766570, at *1 (N.D. Fla. Apr. 11, 2008) (“Although Plaintiff’s claims are 

serious, they are not complex nor will he be required to do legal research since the court is 

familiar with the law on claims of excessive force and failure to protect”). Stated another way, 

Plaintiff’s belief that the claims are “very complex” is not the test. Rather, the type of claim or 

claims asserted are the subject of the Court’s consideration of complexity. 

To the extent Plaintiff relies upon his indigency and/or incarceration to support his 

motion, as previously found, that circumstance does not qualify as an exceptional circumstance 

warranting the appointment of counsel. See Dijkstra v. Campos, No. 1:21-cv-01223-HBK, 2022 

WL 222518, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2022) (“Plaintiff’s indigence does not qualify ‘as an 

exceptional circumstance in a prisoner civil rights case’”); Gipbsin v. Kernan, No. 2:12-cv-0556 

KJM DB P, 2021 WL 242570, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2021) (“Plaintiff’s inability to afford 

counsel has no bearing on either his likelihood of success on the merits or his ability to articulate 

his claims pro se”); Robinson v. Cryer, No. 1:20-cv-00622-HBK (PC), 2021 WL 9541411, at *1 

(E.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2021) (“Although Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and is incarcerated, he faces 

the same obstacles all pro se prisoners face”). Callender v. Ramm, No. 2:16-cv-0694 JAM AC P, 

2018 WL 6448536, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2018) (“The law is clear: neither plaintiff’s 

indigence, nor his lack of education, nor his lack of legal expertise warrant the appointment of 

counsel”); Montano v. Solomon, No. 2:07-cv-0800 KJN P, 2010 WL 2403389, at *2 (E.D. Cal. 

June 11, 2010) (“Neither indigence nor lack of facility in English qualifies as an exceptional 

circumstance in a prisoner civil rights case”). 

Plaintiff contends depositions and interviews of witnesses are necessary, that he cannot do

Case 1:22-cv-00457-KES-CDB Document 44 Filed 03/27/24 Page 5 of 7
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

6

the depositions or interviews, and that the appointment of an attorney is “the only way for all the 

facts to be presented.” The Court disagrees. Plaintiff is reminded of the fact an attorney may be 

better able to perform research, investigate, and represent Plaintiff during discovery and at trial 

does not amount to an exceptional circumstance. Rand, 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”); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)

(same); Courtney v. Kandel, No. 2:18-CV-2052-KJM-DMC-P, 2020 WL 1432991, at *1 (E.D. 

Cal. Mar. 24, 2020) (challenges conducting discovery and preparing for trial “are ordinary for 

prisoners pursuing civil rights claim” and cannot form the basis for appointment of counsel);

Ricks v. Austria, No. 1:15-cv-01147-BAM (PC), 2016 WL 1734326, at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 2, 

2016) (while a pro se litigant may be better served with the assistance of counsel were the case to 

proceed to trial, the court need not appoint counsel if plaintiff can articulate his claims and 

exceptional circumstances do not exist); Thornton v. Schwarzenegger, No. 10CV01583 BTM 

RBB, 2011 WL 90320, at *7 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2011) (explaining that “[f]actual disputes and 

anticipated cross-examination of witnesses do not indicate the presence of complex legal issues 

warranting a finding of exceptional circumstances”).

Plaintiff contends this action involves multiple prison officials “in various different 

prisons.” But, as Plaintiff was previously advised, an action involving multiple defendants and/or 

conduct spanning a period of time is not unusual and does not constitute exceptional 

circumstances in a prisoner civil rights action. Prisoner complaints often involve multiple 

defendants and assert allegations involving conduct spanning months or even years. And the fact 

inmate witnesses have transferred to other institutions or paroled, or that prison officials have 

transferred to another institution or retired, are not exceptional circumstances. Simply put, normal 

challenges faced by pro se litigants do not warrant appointment of counsel. See Siglar v. Hopkins, 

822 F. App'x 610, 612 (9th Cir. 2020) (denying appointment of counsel because the plaintiff’s 

“circumstances were not exceptionally different from the majority of the challenges faced by pro 

se litigants”); see also Arellano v. Sedighi, No. 15-cv-02059-AJB-BGS, 2020 WL 5877832, at 

Case 1:22-cv-00457-KES-CDB Document 44 Filed 03/27/24 Page 6 of 7
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

7

*47 (denying request to appoint counsel where plaintiff claims need for “an attorney to be able to 

locate inmates that are no longer in RJD”); Dickerson v. Adams, No. 1:17-CV-121 (LJA-TQL), 

2017 WL 11518001, at *1 (M.D. Ga. Aug. 9, 2017) (multiple defendants, credibility issues and 

plaintiff’s limited mobility are not exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of 

counsel); Brittain v. Clemons, No. 4:09CV-P123-M, 2010 WL 1257700, at *2 (W.D. Ky. Mar. 

26, 2010) (incarceration, inability to afford counsel and suit involving multiple defendants are not 

exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel). 

The test is not whether Plaintiff would benefit from the appointment of counsel. See

Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331. The test is whether exceptional circumstances exist; once again, here, 

they do not.

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons given above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s request for an investigator (Doc. 41) is DENIED; and

2. Plaintiff’s third motion for the appointment of counsel (Doc. 42) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 27, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-00457-KES-CDB Document 44 Filed 03/27/24 Page 7 of 7