Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00362/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00362-9/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT R. RECINO,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNKNOWN,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00362-LJO-BAM (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND 

MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL

(ECF No. 36)

Plaintiff Robert R. Recino (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action currently proceeds on 

Plaintiff’s third amended complaint against the two unknown correctional officer defendants for 

allegedly failing to intercede as Plaintiff was beaten by other inmates, and for delaying in 

obtaining medical treatment for him after the beating, in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s second motion seeking the appointment of 

counsel, with a declaration in support. (ECF No. 36.) Plaintiff states that he cannot afford a 

lawyer, that his incarceration limits his ability to litigate his case, and that the case is complex and 

he is a first-time litigant. He further states that he is physically and mentally handicapped, such 

that he cannot proceed without representation, and that he requires counsel to assist in his

investigation to determine the identity of the unnamed defendants in this case. 

Case 1:15-cv-00362-LJO-BAM Document 38 Filed 09/13/16 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

As previously explained, 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 “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).

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. His incarcerated status is 

also not sufficient to make this case exceptional; this court is faced with similar cases by inmate 

plaintiffs almost daily. Further, at this early stage, the court cannot find that Plaintiff is likely to 

succeed on the merits. Id. The Court has also granted Plaintiff ample time to conduct an 

investigation into locating the identity of the unnamed defendants, and if he faces any specific 

issues, he may seek an appropriate extension of time upon a showing of good case. The Court 

notes that thus far Plaintiff’s filings and arguments are understandable, despite his claimed 

limitations. 

For these reasons, Plaintiff’s second motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 36) 

is HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 12, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00362-LJO-BAM Document 38 Filed 09/13/16 Page 2 of 2