Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01461/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01461-1/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

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 Adam Jay Stone is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 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 October 18, 

2021. 

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 circumstances the Court 

may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 

1525.

///

///

ADAM JAY STONE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

C. PFIEFFER,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 1:21-cv-01461-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(ECF No. 8)

Case 1:21-cv-01461-SAB Document 9 Filed 10/20/21 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). 

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.”) Circumstances common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal 

education and limited law library access, do not establish exceptional circumstances that would 

warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. The test is whether exception circumstances 

exist and here, they do not. In the present case, the Court has yet to screen Plaintiff’s complaint and 

based on a cursory review of the complaint, the Court does not find the required exceptional 

circumstances. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is denied, without 

prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 20, 2021 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-01461-SAB Document 9 Filed 10/20/21 Page 2 of 2