Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00855/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00855-13/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

GERRY WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

CLEMENT OGBUEHI, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-00855-JLT-EPG (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR APPOINTMENT OF PRO BONO 

COUNSEL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(ECF No. 68)

Gerry Williams (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 

this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On January 9, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of pro bono counsel. (ECF 

No. 68). Plaintiff asks for appointment of counsel because Plaintiff is unable to afford counsel; 

because the issues involved in this case are complex; because Plaintiff has very limited access to 

the law library; because Plaintiff is unable to investigate the facts; because Plaintiff contacted 

attorneys and they all declined to take his case; because Plaintiff is suffering from impaired liver 

function due to Hepatitis-C, and Plaintiff is experiencing severe pain, fatigue, dizziness, mental

confusion, difficulty in urination, heart palpitations, bladder leakage, severe itching, and severe 

anxiety; because Plaintiff has limited knowledge of the law; and because Plaintiff’s case has 

merit.

Case 1:19-cv-00855-JLT-EPG Document 69 Filed 01/12/23 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

Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. 

Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 

(9th Cir. 1998), 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). 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, a 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. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

The Court will not order appointment of counsel at this time. The Court has reviewed the 

record in this case, and at this time the Court is unable to make a determination that Plaintiff is 

likely to succeed on the merits of his claims. Moreover, it appears that Plaintiff can adequately 

articulate his claims. 

Plaintiff is advised that he is not precluded from renewing his motion for appointment of

pro bono counsel at a later stage of the proceedings. 

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of pro 

bono counsel is DENIED without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 11, 2023 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00855-JLT-EPG Document 69 Filed 01/12/23 Page 2 of 2