Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00250/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00250-8/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 George K. Colbert is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel, filed 

October 5, 2015. 

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.

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 

GEORGE K. COLBERT,

 Plaintiff,

v.

P. CHAVEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:10-cv-00250-AWI-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE

[ECF No. 73]

Case 1:10-cv-00250-DAD-SAB Document 74 Filed 10/06/15 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

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 finds that neither the interests of justice nor 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). While counsel may be able to 

cross-examine witnesses at trial, so long as a pro se litigant, like Plaintiff in this case, 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, 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-particular in the realms of discovery and 

the security of expert testimony.”) Indeed, any pro se litigant “would be better served with the 

assistance of counsel.” Id. 

In this case, Plaintiff is proceeding on a claim of excessive force against Defendants Chavez, 

Lindsey, Emard, Flores, Ramirez, and Farnsworth, and against Defendants Chavez, Lindsey, Emard, 

Flores, and Ramirez for retaliation. Defendant Douncan was dismissed from the action pursuant to 

Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 38.) To date, Plaintiff has demonstrated 

an ability to articulate the factual and legal basis for his arguments and has effectively litigated this 

case. In addition, 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. Furthermore, Defendants have filed a motion for summary judgment 

which is presently pending before the Court and the Court cannot determine at this juncture whether 

Plaintiff is likely to proceed on the merits of his claims. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for the 

appointment of counsel is DENIED, without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 6, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00250-DAD-SAB Document 74 Filed 10/06/15 Page 2 of 2