Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00850/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00850-19/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT HACKWORTH,

Plaintiff,

v.

P. RANGEL, et al.,

Defendants. 

________________________________/

CASE No. 1:06-cv-0850-AWI-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION REQUESTING

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(ECF No. 98)

Plaintiff Robert Hackworth is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action filed July 6, 2006 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF

No. 1.)

This matter proceeds on Plaintiff’s excessive force claim against Defendant

Rangel. (ECF No. 20.) The Court granted Defendant Rangel’s motion for summary

judgment on October 6, 2011 and dismissed this action. (ECF Nos. 77 & 78.) Plaintiff

initiated an appeal on October 17, 2011. (ECF No. 79.) The United States Court of

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the Court’s summary judgment and remanded the

matter for further proceedings on September 12, 2012. (ECF No. 90.) Trial in this 1

matter is set for October 22, 2013. (ECF No. 92.)

Mandate thereon entered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on October

1

18, 2012. (ECF No. 91.)

-1-

Case 1:06-cv-00850-BAM Document 99 Filed 04/02/13 Page 1 of 4
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

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion Requesting Appointment of

Counsel filed March 18, 2013. (ECF No. 98.)

Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action,

Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), partially overruled on other

grounds, 154 F.3d 952, 954 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998), and the Court can not 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 (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 or her claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id.

Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together before

reaching a decision on request of counsel under section 1915(d).” Wilborn v.

Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970

(9th Cir. 2009). 

The burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances is on the Plaintiff. See

Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970 (plaintiff “has not made the requisite showing of exceptional

circumstances for the appointment of counsel”); accord, Alvarez v. Jacquez, 415 F.

App’x 830, 831 (9th Cir. 2011) (plaintiff “failed to show exceptional circumstances”);

Simmons v. Hambly, 14 F. App’x 918, 919 (9th Cir. 2001) (same); Davis v. Yarborough,

459 F. App’x 601, 602 (9th Cir. 2011) (plaintiff “did not show the ‘exceptional

circumstances’ required to appoint counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).”)

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

-2-

Case 1:06-cv-00850-BAM Document 99 Filed 04/02/13 Page 2 of 4
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

not exceptional. This Court is faced with similar cases almost daily. Plaintiff’s 602

relating to library access and unspecified inquiry to counsel appointed by the Court in

another matter, attached to his Motion, are not sufficient for the Court to find

exceptional circumstances. 

Further, Plaintiff’s excessive force claim remains in dispute and the Court can not

make a determination at this stage of the litigation that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on

the merits. The excessive force claim in issue does not appear to be novel or unduly

complex. The facts alleged to date appear straightforward and unlikely to involve any

extensive further investigation and discovery.

The papers filed by Plaintiff in this case reflect an appreciation of the legal issues

and standards and an ability to express same adequately in writing.

Finally, nothing suggests that Plaintiff has made diligent efforts to secure

counsel. The above noted unspecified inquiry to counsel appointed by the Court in 2

another matter is not sufficient. Plaintiff’s lack of funds alone does not necessarily mean

efforts to secure counsel would be futile. 

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion Requesting Appointment of Counsel

(ECF No. 98) is HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 1, 2013 /s/Michael J. Seng 

See e.g. Thornton v. Schwarzenegger, 2011 W L 90320, *3-4 (S.D. Cal. 2011) (cases cited).

2

-3-

Case 1:06-cv-00850-BAM Document 99 Filed 04/02/13 Page 3 of 4
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

12eob4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-4-

Case 1:06-cv-00850-BAM Document 99 Filed 04/02/13 Page 4 of 4