Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01148/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01148-2/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

SCOTT K. RICKS,

Plaintiff,

v.

O. ONYEJE, et al.,

Defendants.

1:15-cv-01148-EPG (PC) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

(Document# 18)

On January 4, 2016, 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 1:15-cv-01148-AWI-BAM Document 19 Filed 01/15/16 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

In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. 

Plaintiff argues that he cannot afford counsel, and his imprisonment will greatly limit his ability 

to litigate. This alone does not make Plaintiff’s case exceptional. 

At this early stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff 

is likely to succeed on the merits. Plaintiff=s complaint awaits the Court=s screening required 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Thus, to date the Court has not found any cognizable claims in 

Plaintiff=s complaint for which to initiate service of process, and no other parties have yet 

appeared. The legal issue in this case B whether Defendants were deliberately indifferent to 

Plaintiff’s serious medical needs B is not complex. Moreover, based on a review of the record in 

this case, the Court finds that Plaintiff can adequately articulate his claims. Therefore, 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 15, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01148-AWI-BAM Document 19 Filed 01/15/16 Page 2 of 2