Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01747/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01747-19/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID SAFIDI CAUTHEN, JR.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

RIVERA, et al., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:12cv01747 DLB PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR COUNSEL

(Document 76)

Plaintiff David Safidi Cauthen, Jr., (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and 

in forma pauperis in this civil rights action. On August 24, 2015, he filed a motion for 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 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 

Aexceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success 

Case 1:12-cv-01747-DLB Document 78 Filed 08/28/15 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

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).

This case is set for trial on January 5, 2016. Plaintiff argues that because he is 

incarcerated, he will be less likely to prevail. This, however, is not a sufficient reason to appoint 

counsel. Plaintiff’s case is not exceptional, and based on a review of the record in this case, the 

Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id. 

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

DENIED, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 27, 2015 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01747-DLB Document 78 Filed 08/28/15 Page 2 of 2