Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00029/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00029-1/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MATTHEW W. MORGAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

VALLEY STATE PRISON, et al,

Defendants.

1:20-cv-00029-GSA (PC) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

(ECF No. 6.)

On January 27, 2020, 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 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).

Case 1:20-cv-00029-ADA-GSA Document 8 Filed 01/30/20 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 2

In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff 

alleges that he is mentally incompetent to represent himself and has no knowledge of the law. These 

circumstances, without more, do not make plaintiff’s case exceptional under the law. On January 

7, 2020, plaintiff’s claims were severed from the original complaint, a new case was opened for 

plaintiff, and plaintiff was ordered to file an amended complaint within 30 days. (ECF No. 1.) To 

date, plaintiff has not filed the amended complaint. 

Plaintiff alleges that the issues in his case are complex. However, without reviewing 

plaintiff’s amended complaint, the court cannot determine whether plaintiff can adequately 

articulate his claims or whether he is likely to succeed on the merits. Therefore, plaintiff’s motion

for appointment of counsel shall be denied, without prejudice to renewal of the motion at a later 

stage of the proceedings. 

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion 

for the appointment of counsel filed on January 27, 2020, is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 30, 2020 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00029-ADA-GSA Document 8 Filed 01/30/20 Page 2 of 2