Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01164/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01164-2/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

WAYNE L. PICKERING,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

1:13-cv-01164-DAD-BAM (PC) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

(ECF No. 16)

Plaintiff Wayne L. Pickering (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on 

July 26, 2013. (ECF No. 1.)

On November 30, 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 under

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 

Case 1:13-cv-01164-DAD-BAM Document 18 Filed 12/05/16 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

Aexceptional 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.@ Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (internal quotation marks and 

citations omitted).

In the present case, Plaintiff claims that he is incapable of prosecuting his claims because 

he has a learning disability and is being moved to another prison, and thus requires the assistance 

of counsel. The Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances in this case. 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. To the extent Plaintiff alleges that he has a learning disability, he has 

neither stated what it is, nor has he articulated how it affects his ability to prosecute his claims. A 

review of the record indicates that Plaintiff is capable of adequately articulating his claims. If 

Plaintiff requires additional time to comply with the relevant deadlines and courts orders because 

of his learning disability or his transfer to another prison, he may seek appropriate extensions of 

time. Further, at this early stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that 

Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. Id. 

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

DENIED, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 5, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01164-DAD-BAM Document 18 Filed 12/05/16 Page 2 of 2