Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00202/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00202-7/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-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES JORDAN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

R. CHAPNICK,

Defendant. 

________________________________/

1:07-cv-00202-OWW-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

(ECF No. 47)

On July 28, 2010, Plaintiff James Jordan 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 (1989). 

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. However,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

Case 1:07-cv-00202-MJS Document 48 Filed 08/05/10 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-

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 almost daily. Although the Court is sympathetic to

the medical conditions that limit Plaintiff’s ability to prosecute this action, he has performed

adequately thus far. Going forward, if Plaintiff finds that additional time is needed to meet

any of the Court’s deadlines, he is free to ask the Court for an extension. 

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Request for Appointment of Counsel is

DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 4, 2010 /s/Michael J. Seng 

ci4d6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00202-MJS Document 48 Filed 08/05/10 Page 2 of 2