Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00229/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00229-1/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 MONTANEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

VELASCO, et al.,

Defendants.

1:12-cv-00229-DAD-EPG (PC) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

(ECF No. 36)

On January 13, 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 1:12-cv-00229-DAD-EPG Document 37 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, Plaintiff argues that he is unable to afford counsel and lacks access to 

legal materials. This alone does not make Plaintiff’s case exceptional. This Court is faced with 

similar cases daily. While the Court has found that “Plaintiff’s complaint states a claim under the 

Eighth Amendment against Defendants Velasco and Campbell for deliberate indifference to 

Plaintiff’s medical needs,” this finding is not a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on 

the merits. (ECF No. 8 at 4:11-12.) Plaintiff’s medical claims do not appear complex, and based 

on a review of the record in this case, it appears that Plaintiff can adequately articulate his claims. 

Thus, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances, and 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 1:12-cv-00229-DAD-EPG Document 37 Filed 01/15/16 Page 2 of 2