Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01554/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01554-0/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

BENJAMIN K. TOSCANO,

Plaintiff,

v.

SCOTT KERNAN,

Defendant(s).

1:16-cv-01554 EPG (PC) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

(Document# 3)

Benjamin K. Toscano (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint on September 23, 2016 in the 

Northern District of California. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff’s case was transferred to this Court on 

October 12, 2016. (ECF No. 4) On the same day, plaintiff filed a motion seeking the 

appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 3)

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 

Case 1:16-cv-01554-DAD-EPG Document 8 Filed 10/21/16 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

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).

In the present case, the court 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. 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. 

The next step in this case is that the Court will screen the complaint to determine if it 

states cognizable claims and will issue an order. It is too early to determine that Plaintiff’s case 

has a likelihood of success on the merits and that appointment of counsel would be appropriate. 

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

DENIED, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 21, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01554-DAD-EPG Document 8 Filed 10/21/16 Page 2 of 2