Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01112/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01112-2/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

DAVID RYAN EHA,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01112-BAM-PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(ECF NO. 9)

Plaintiff Eha is a state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On October 28, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for the appointment of counsel. (ECF No.

9.) Plaintiff has not previously sought the appointment of counsel. 

Plaintiff is advised that 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 195(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 

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).

In the present case, the Court has considered Plaintiff’s moving papers, but does not find 

Case 1:15-cv-01112-BAM Document 10 Filed 10/30/15 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

2

the required exceptional circumstances. 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 

unconstitutional conditions of confinement. The issues in this case are not complex, and Plaintiff 

has thoroughly set forth his arguments in the complaint filed in this action. Plaintiff’s sole 

argument is that he is indigent and cannot afford counsel. In forma pauperis status alone does 

not alone entitle Plaintiff to appointed 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, 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.”) Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s 

motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 30, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01112-BAM Document 10 Filed 10/30/15 Page 2 of 2