Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00011/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00011-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MALCOLM YISRAEL WRIGHT,

Plaintiff,

vs.

SMITH, et al.,

Defendants. 

________________________________/

1:10-cv-00011 GSA (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(DOCUMENT #36)

On February 14, 2013, 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

“exceptional 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

-1-

Case 1:10-cv-00011-AWI-GSA Document 38 Filed 02/21/13 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

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. At

this stage in the proceedings, the court cannot make a determination that plaintiff is likely to

succeed on the merits. While the court found that Plaintiff stated cognizable claims for

interference with his mail and violation of his rights to exercise his religion, defendants’ motion

to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies is now pending and may dispose of the

case. Moreover, based on the record in this case, the court does not find that plaintiff cannot

adequately articulate his claims. Therefore, 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: February 21, 2013 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

220hhe UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-2-

Case 1:10-cv-00011-AWI-GSA Document 38 Filed 02/21/13 Page 2 of 2