Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00715/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00715-0/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

SCOTT K. RICKS,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. KAMENA, et al,

Defendant.

1:15-cv-00715-BAM (PC) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

(ECF No. 3)

Plaintiff Scott K. Ricks (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 8, 2015, Plaintiff initiated this action. On the same 

date, Plaintiff filed the instant 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 on 

Case 1:15-cv-00715-DAD-BAM Document 6 Filed 05/12/15 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

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).

Here, Plaintiff asserts that appointment of counsel is warranted because he is unable to 

afford counsel, his imprisonment will limit his ability to litigate, he is no longer housed where the 

incident took place, he is severely mentally and physically disabled, the case will likely involve 

conflicting testimony and he has made repeated efforts to obtain a lawyer without success. (ECF 

No. 3.) The Court has considered Plaintiff’s moving papers, but does not find the required 

exceptional circumstances. Even if it is 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. This Court is faced with similar cases almost daily from indigent prisoners. 

Additionally, Plaintiff’s assertions of severe mental and physical disabilities are unsupported by 

any evidence in the record. Further, at this early stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make 

a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits, and based on a review of the 

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

Id.

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff=s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY 

DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 11, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00715-DAD-BAM Document 6 Filed 05/12/15 Page 2 of 2