Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00655/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00655-4/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

D’ANNUNZIO ROMAN GAVIOLA 

PATRON,

Plaintiff,

v.

LEWY HUGH, et al.,

 Defendants.

No. 1:24-cv-00655-JLT-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(ECF No. 18)

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action filed pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, filed 

November 5, 2024. (ECF No. 18.) Plaintiff seeks appointment of counsel because of his 

imprisonment, lack of access to law library, limited knowledge of the law, and a trial will likely 

involve conflicting testimony. (Id.) 

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 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 

Case 1:24-cv-00655-JLT-SAB Document 19 Filed 11/06/24 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

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 

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 does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even 

if it 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 not exceptional. The Court is faced with 

similar cases almost daily. While the Court recognizes that Plaintiff is at a disadvantage due to 

his pro se status and his incarceration, the test is not whether Plaintiff would benefit from the 

appointment of counsel. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Most 

actions require development of further facts during litigation and a pro se litigant will seldom be 

in a position to investigate easily the facts necessary to support the case.”) The test is whether 

exception circumstances exist and here, they do not. Although the Court has found that Plaintiff’s 

complaint states cognizable claims, at this juncture, the Court cannot determine the likelihood of 

success on the merits of Plaintiff’s claims. The likelihood of success on the merits determination 

is not the same as that required at screening. Further, a review of the docket reflects that Plaintiff 

has adequately litigated this action to date. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment 

of counsel is denied, without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 6, 2024 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

Case 1:24-cv-00655-JLT-SAB Document 19 Filed 11/06/24 Page 2 of 2