Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01402/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01402-6/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff John Anthony Vella is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On April 16, 2015, Plaintiff filed a second motion for the appointment of counsel. The Court 

previously denied Plaintiff’s request for counsel finding no exceptional circumstances. (ECF No. 23.) 

As previously advised, 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 any 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 (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 

JOHN ANTHONY VELLA,

 Plaintiff,

v.

EDGAR CLARK, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-01402-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND 

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

[ECF No. 23]

Case 1:12-cv-01402-LJO-SAB Document 43 Filed 04/20/15 Page 1 of 2
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

“exceptional 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.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 

Plaintiff requests appointment of counsel because he is indigent, has limited access to the law 

library, has limited experience, and the issues involved in the case are complex.

Here, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has not established either the likelihood of success on 

the merits or an inability to articulate his claims. Even if it 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. Plaintiff alleges an Eighth Amendment claim against several defendants for 

denying him appropriate medical attention. The legal issues present in this action are not complex, 

and Plaintiff has thoroughly set forth his allegations in the complaint. Further, the hardships faced by 

Plaintiff due to incarceration such as limited access to the law library does not establish exceptional 

circumstances. Indeed, the reasons set forth by Plaintiff are indistinguishable from the reasons 

asserted by most incarcerated plaintiffs. The fact that a pro se litigant would be better served with the 

assistance of counsel, does not qualify as exceptional circumstances to warrant counsel. Rand, 113 

F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, Plaintiff second motion for appointment of counsel is 

DENIED, without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 17, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01402-LJO-SAB Document 43 Filed 04/20/15 Page 2 of 2