Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00590/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00590-0/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

DAVID CREW,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF DEPARTMENT 

OF CORRECTIONS AND 

REHABILITATION,

Defendant.

1:16-cv-00590-BAM (PC) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

(ECF No. 4)

Plaintiff David Crew (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 25, 2016, the same day 

he filed this action, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 4.) He 

argues that he requires appointed counsel because he does not have enough income to employ his 

own counsel, his case is complex, he has limited access to legal research materials, and he is a 

layman with a limited formal education and no education in the law. 

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 

Case 1:16-cv-00590-LJO-BAM Document 9 Filed 04/28/16 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

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 

“exceptional 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 alleging deliberate indifference to serious medical needs 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. 

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff=s motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 4) 

is HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 27, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00590-LJO-BAM Document 9 Filed 04/28/16 Page 2 of 2