Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01722/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01722-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOE NINO,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. MUNOZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-01722-JLT (PC)

ORDER TO SUBMIT APPLICATION

TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

OR PAY FILING FEE

45-DAY-DEADLINE

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Doc. 2)

Plaintiff has not paid the $400 filing fee for this action or submitted an application to 

proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS 

Plaintiff, within 45 days of the date of service of this order, to submit the attached application to 

proceed in forma pauperis, completed and signed, or, in the alternative, pay the $400 filing fee. 

No requests for extension will be granted without a showing of good cause. Failure to comply 

with this order will result in dismissal of this action.

Plaintiff also requests the appointment of counsel to represent him in this action (Doc. 2.)

Plaintiffs do not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in section 1983 actions, Rand v. 

Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an attorney to 

represent a party under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 

304-05 (1989). However, in “exceptional circumstances,” the Court may request the voluntary 

Case 1:20-cv-01722-KES-CDB Document 4 Filed 12/09/20 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

assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.

Given that the Court has no reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the 

Court will seek volunteer counsel only in extraordinary cases. In determining whether 

“exceptional circumstances exist, a 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).

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 has made serious allegations that, if 

proven, would entitle him to relief, his case is not extraordinary. The Court is faced with similar 

cases almost daily. In addition, at this stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a 

determination on whether Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits; and, based on a review of 

the records in this case, the Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his

claims. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel 

without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 9, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-01722-KES-CDB Document 4 Filed 12/09/20 Page 2 of 2