Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00120/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00120-1/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

PAUL DIXON LEWIS,

 Plaintiff,

v.

KEN CLARK, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-00120-DAD-JDP

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

ECF No. 11

Plaintiff Paul Dixon Lewis, a state prisoner without counsel, brings this action under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. On February 3, 2020, he filed a motion requesting appointment of counsel. ECF

No. 11. He submits that he suffers from a variety of medical ailments, has limited access to the 

law library, and cannot afford an attorney. Id.

Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, see 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v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds on reh’g en 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), and the court lacks the authority to require an attorney to 

represent plaintiff, see Mallard v. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 

296, 298 (1989). We may request the voluntary assistance of counsel. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(1); Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. However, without a means to compensate counsel, the 

Case 1:20-cv-00120-DAD-JDP Document 12 Filed 02/10/20 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

court will seek volunteer counsel only in exceptional circumstances. In determining whether such 

circumstances exist, “the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on the merits 

[and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the 

legal issues involved.” Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

We cannot conclude that exceptional circumstances requiring the appointment of counsel are 

present here. The issues raised by the complaint are not unusually complicated and, at this stage 

of the proceedings, plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. 

The court may revisit this issue at a later stage of the proceedings if the interests of justice 

so require. If plaintiff later renews his request for counsel, he should provide a detailed 

explanation of the circumstances that he believes justify appointment of counsel. Accordingly, 

plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel, ECF No. 11, is denied without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 10, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

No. 205.

Case 1:20-cv-00120-DAD-JDP Document 12 Filed 02/10/20 Page 2 of 2