Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01199/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01199-10/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Avery Hypolite is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff consented to United States magistrate judge jurisdiction on 

August 22, 2014. (ECF No. 7.) 

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

17, 2016. 

As Plaintiff is aware, 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 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 

F.3d at 1525.

AVERY HYPOLITE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

R. ZAMORA,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01199-LJO-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S FIFTH 

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

[ECF No. 39]

Case 1:14-cv-01199-LJO-SAB Document 40 Filed 06/21/16 Page 1 of 2
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

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). 

As with Plaintiff’s prior motions, the Court does find that the interests of justice or exceptional 

circumstances warrant appointment of counsel at this time. 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 excessive force and the legal issues present in this action are not complex, and Plaintiff has 

thoroughly set forth his allegations in the complaint. While a pro se litigant may be better served with 

the assistance of 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 v. Rowland, 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.”) Circumstances common to most prisoners, such as 

lack of funds, legal education and limited law library access, do not establish exceptional 

circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. Accordingly, 

Plaintiff’s fifth motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED, without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 21, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01199-LJO-SAB Document 40 Filed 06/21/16 Page 2 of 2