Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01718/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01718-1/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

BILLY DRIVER, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

ADA 1824 PANELS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-01718-DAD-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

(ECF No. 14)

Plaintiff Billy Driver, Jr. is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

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

January 14, 2020. (ECF No. 14.) Plaintiff asserts that the Court should appoint counsel to 

represent him in this case because he is mentally ill, his access to the prison law library is being 

obstructed, and he will need the assistance of a lawyer at any jury trial in this case.

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). Nevertheless, in certain exceptional 

circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to § 1915(e)(1). 

Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.

Case 1:19-cv-01718-DAD-SAB Document 17 Filed 01/27/20 Page 1 of 3
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

Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek 

volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. The Court has very limited 

counsel to appoint in this Division, and therefore, applies the “exceptional circumstances” test. 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). “Neither of these considerations is dispositive and instead must be viewed 

together.” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). The burden of demonstrating 

exceptional circumstances is on the plaintiff. Id.

The Court has considered Plaintiff’s request for appointed counsel, but does not find the 

required exceptional circumstances. First, circumstances common to most prisoners, such as lack 

of legal education, limited law library access, and lack of funds to hire counsel, do not alone 

establish the exceptional circumstances that would warrant appointment of counsel. Second, 

Plaintiff’s apprehension with pursuing this case on his own, while understandable, is not 

sufficient grounds for appointing 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.”).

Third, a plaintiff that has an ability to reasonably articulate their claims is not entitled to 

appointment of counsel, regardless of whether the plaintiff has mental health problems. See

Warren v. Harrison, 244 F. App’x 831, 832 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that an inmate plaintiff who 

had alleged mental illness did not qualify for appointed counsel because the plaintiff competently 

presented his claims and attached three pertinent exhibits in response to a court order); Miller v. 

McDaniel, 124 F. App’x 488, 490 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that an inmate plaintiff with mental 

health problems was not entitled to appointment of counsel because the plaintiff demonstrated an 

ability to articulate his claims pro se). Here, as in the cases cited above, Plaintiff has shown an 

ability to articulate his claims and litigate this action in spite of any mental health issues he has. 

Further, the Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint and finds that Plaintiff’s claims do not 

appear to present novel or complex issues of substantive law. Finally, since the Court has not yet 

Case 1:19-cv-01718-DAD-SAB Document 17 Filed 01/27/20 Page 2 of 3
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

3

screened Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court cannot evaluate Plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the 

merits of his claims. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, (ECF No. 14), is HEREBY 

DENIED, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 27, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01718-DAD-SAB Document 17 Filed 01/27/20 Page 3 of 3