Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01324/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01324-5/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

COREY MITCHELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

B. DAVIGA, et al.,

Defendants.

1:13-cv-01324-DAD-EPG (PC) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

(Document# 33)

On March 31, 2016, Plaintiff 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, 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 

Aexceptional 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 omitted).

Case 1:13-cv-01324-DAD-EPG Document 34 Filed 04/19/16 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

In the present case, Plaintiff argues that he is unable to afford counsel and is not 

knowledgeable about the law and litigation. This does not make Plaintiff’s case exceptional. At 

this stage of the proceedings, the Court cannot find that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. 

While the Court has found that “[l]iberally construed, the complaint states a claim for relief 

against Defendants Sheldon and Chavez for failure to protect Plaintiff in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment,” these findings are not a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the 

merits. (ECF No. 14 at 4:20-21.) The legal issue in this case -- whether defendants were 

deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of harm to Plaintiff – does not appear complex. 

Moreover, based on a review of the record in this case, the Court finds that Plaintiff can 

adequately articulate his claims. Thus, the Court does not find the required exceptional 

circumstances, and Plaintiff’s motion shall be denied without prejudice to renewal of the motion 

at a later stage of the proceedings.

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff=s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY 

DENIED, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 18, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01324-DAD-EPG Document 34 Filed 04/19/16 Page 2 of 2