Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00600/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00600-7/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

MICHAEL KLEIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

CONANAN,

Defendant.

1:13-cv-00600-GSA (PC) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

(Document# 38)

On December 29, 2014, 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 

Aexceptional 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 

complexity of the legal issues involved.@ Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

Case 1:13-cv-00600-DAD-EPG Document 40 Filed 01/05/15 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

In the present case, Plaintiff argues that he is unable to afford counsel and his 

imprisonment will greatly limit his ability to litigate. This does not make Plaintiff’s case 

exceptional. This court is faced with similar cases daily. Plaintiff also asserts that he “has only a 

tab score of 5.3,” but has not explained the meaning of this measurement or why it entitles him to 

appointment of counsel. (Motion at 4 ¶4.) While the court has found that “[l]iberally construed,

Plaintiff has alleged facts indicating that Dr. Conanan failed to treat Plaintiff’s Hepatitis C, 

resulting in irreversible damage,” this finding is not a determination that Plaintiff is likely to 

succeed on the merits and at this juncture, the court cannot find that Plaintiff is likely to succeed 

on the merits. (Doc. 6 at 2:10-12.) Plaintiff’s medical claims do not appear complex, and based 

on a review of the record in this case, the court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately 

articulate his claims. Thus, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances, and 

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: January 5, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00600-DAD-EPG Document 40 Filed 01/05/15 Page 2 of 2