Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00346/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00346-0/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

JASON PATTEN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

J. WALKER, et al.,

Defendants. 

________________________________/

1:13-cv-00346 GSA (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(MOTION #3)

On March 11, 2013, 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).

-1-

Case 1:13-cv-00346-RRB Document 6 Filed 03/22/13 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

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

this early stage in the proceedings, the court cannot make a determination that plaintiff is likely

to succeed on the merits. Plaintiff filed the Complaint on March 11, 2013, less than two weeks

ago, and the Complaint awaits the Court’s screening required under 28 U.S.C. 1915. Thus, to

date the Court has not found any cognizable claims in Plaintiff’s Complaint for which to initiate

service of process, and no other parties have yet appeared. Moreover, based on a review of the

record in this case, the Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims.

Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion shall be denied without prejudice to renewal of the motion at a

later stage of the proceedings. 

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY

DENIED, without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 21, 2013 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

220hhe UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-2-

Case 1:13-cv-00346-RRB Document 6 Filed 03/22/13 Page 2 of 2