Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01582/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01582-12/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

ALEJANDRO JOSE MORALES,

Plaintiff,

v.

HEZEKIAH SHERWOOD, et al.,

Defendants.

1:13-cv-01582-AWI-GSA (PC) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

(ECF No. 42.)

On September 2, 2015, 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 

Aexceptional 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 1:13-cv-01582-DAD-EPG Document 43 Filed 09/04/15 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

In the present case, Plaintiff argues that he is unable to afford counsel and his limited 

access to the law library at the prison will greatly limit his ability to litigate. This does not make 

plaintiff’s case exceptional. This court is faced with similar cases daily. While the court has 

found that “Plaintiff states cognizable claims against defendants Sherwood, Coontz, and Felix for use 

of excessive force under the Eighth Amendment; against defendant Sherwood for retaliation under the 

First Amendment; and against defendant Coontz for failure to protect Plaintiff in violation of the 

Eighth Amendment,” this finding is not a determination that plaintiff is likely to succeed on the 

merits and at this juncture, the court cannot find that plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. 

(ECF No. 31 at 12 ¶V.) Plaintiff’s claims do not appear complex, and based on a review of the 

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

Thus, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances, and 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: September 3, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01582-DAD-EPG Document 43 Filed 09/04/15 Page 2 of 2