Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00598/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00598-6/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

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

MARK A. SCOTT,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

CASTILLO, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:20-cv-00598-ADA-GSA-PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(ECF No. 40.)

On April 25, 2023, plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 

40.) 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 

Case 1:20-cv-00598-KES-GSA Document 42 Filed 05/05/23 Page 1 of 2
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

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).

In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. 

Plaintiff seeks appointment of counsel because he is unable to afford counsel, has very limited 

access to the law library, and has limited knowledge of the law. These are not an exceptional 

circumstances under the law. Plaintiff also alleges that the issues involved in this case are 

complex; however, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s excessive force claim is not complex. While 

the court has found that “Plaintiff states a cognizable claim against defendant C/O David Castillo 

for use of excessive force against Plaintiff in violation of the Eighth Amendment,” this finding 

is not a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. (ECF No. 15 at 6:10-11.) 

Based on a review of the record in this case, Plaintiff can adequately articulate his claims and 

respond to court orders. 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.

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel 

is HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 5, 2023 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00598-KES-GSA Document 42 Filed 05/05/23 Page 2 of 2