Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06149/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06149-3/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DENNIS McCORNELL,

Plaintiff, CV F 02 6149 AWI WMW P

 vs. ORDER RE MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION (DOC 44 )

JAMES GOMEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________/

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Pending before the court is

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s denial of his motion for

appointment of counsel.

Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s order denying Plaintiff’s

motion for the appointment of counsel. There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case. 

Lassiter v. Dep’t. of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). 28 U.S.C. § 1915 confers on a

district court only the power to “request” that counsel represent a litigant who is proceeding in

forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). This does not give the courts the power to make

“coercive appointments of counsel.” Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. § 296, 310

(1989). The court may ask counsel to represent an indigent litigant under section 1915 only in

“exceptional circumstances,” the determination of which requires an evaulation of both (1) the

Case 1:02-cv-06149-AWI-WMW Document 47 Filed 03/03/06 Page 1 of 3
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

2

likelihood of success on the merits and (2) the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro

se in light of the complexity of the legal issues invovled. Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525

(9th Cir. 1997) withdrawn in part on other grounds on reh’g en banc, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir.

1998)(en banc); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986).

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration consists of a single page recitation of the

allegations of the complaint. Plaintiff sets forth allegations regarding the conduct of correctional

officials in general. Plaintiff does not directly address a basis for the appointment of counsel,

nor does plaintiff refer to the legal standard set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s denial of his

original motion for the appointment of counsel. Appointing counsel requires the court to review

Plaintiff’s likely success and Plaintiff’s ability to legally argue his case. The ability to find

evidence supporting his case is not a factor.

Applying the factors the court can consider, the Magistrate Judge did not commit

clear error in denying the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff has offered no persuasive argument

to meet the requirement that there is a likelihood of success. Plaintiff has also not shown that the

legal issues in this case are so complex that Plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claims so low that

counsel is needed. Plaintiff, like most pro se litigants, would be served with the assistance of

counsel. However, because most pro se litigants would be assisted by counsel, the court can only

appoint counsel if the Plaintiff shows that “because of the complexity of the claims he was

unable to articulate his positions.” Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. There is no such showing in this

case. 

Plaintiff has failed to make a showing that statutory grounds exist that entitle

Plaintiff to reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s order denying Plaintiff’s motion for

counsel. The Magistrate Judge’s order was not clear error. Further, Plaintiff has cited no new

facts, new law, mistake, fraud, or other extraordinary circumstances that would entitle Plaintiff to

reconsideration. See Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 60(b); Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 72(a); Local Rule 72-303; Local Rule

Case 1:02-cv-06149-AWI-WMW Document 47 Filed 03/03/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

78-230(k). As such, Plaintiff is not entitled to reconsideration. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s denial of his

request for the appointment of counsel is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 3, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-06149-AWI-WMW Document 47 Filed 03/03/06 Page 3 of 3