Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01754/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01754-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DELTON L. TAYLOR,

Plaintiff,

v.

HARISHKUMAR PATEL, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:14-cv-01754-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING SECOND MOTION 

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (ECF 

No. 13)

Plaintiff, Delton Taylor, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has 

consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims against 

Defendants Patel and Le were found to be cognizable on May 13, 2015 (ECF No. 10), 

although Defendants have yet to be served. 

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 13.) 

Plaintiff contends that “exceptional circumstances” exist: specifically, that the case 

involves complex legal issues, will require burdensome discovery, and that his own 

efforts to obtain counsel have proven fruitless.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel in 

civil cases. Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997) partially overruled on 

Case 1:14-cv-01754-DAD-JDP Document 14 Filed 06/04/15 Page 1 of 3
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

other grounds, 154 F.3d 952, 954 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998); White v. McGinnis, 903 F.2d 699, 

700 n.3 (9th Cir. 1990). Nor is there a constitutional right to appointed counsel for § 1983 

claims, specifically. Campbell v. Burt, 141 F.3d 927, 931 (9th Cir. 1998). The Court 

may, in “exceptional circumstances,” appoint counsel for an indigent civil rights litigant. 

Palmer v. Valdez , 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009); Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of 

America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). However, without a reasonable method 

of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek volunteer counsel only in the 

most serious and exceptional cases. To determine whether exceptional circumstances 

exist, the Court evaluates both the likelihood of success on the merits and Plaintiff’s 

ability to articulate his claims in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. 

Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970. Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be viewed 

together before reaching a decision on request of counsel under section 1915(d). Id., at 

970(citing Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)).

The burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances is on Plaintiff. See 

Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970 (plaintiff “has not made the requisite showing of exceptional 

circumstances for the appointment of counsel”); accord, Alvarez v. Jacquez, 415 F. 

App'x 830, 831 (9th Cir. 2011) (plaintiff “failed to show exceptional circumstances”); 

Simmons v. Hambly, 14 F. App'x 918, 919 (9th Cir. 2001) (same); Davis v. Yarborough,

459 F. App'x 601, 602 (9th Cir. 2011) (plaintiff “did not show the ‘exceptional 

circumstances' required to appoint counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).”).

II. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL DENIED

Here, Plaintiff has not demonstrated the existence of exceptional circumstances. 

At this early stage of the litigation, the Court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is 

likely to succeed on the merits. Despite Plaintiff’s assertions to the contrary, Plaintiff’s 

Case 1:14-cv-01754-DAD-JDP Document 14 Filed 06/04/15 Page 2 of 3
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

3

medical indifference claims do not appear to be novel or unduly complex. The facts 

alleged to date appear straightforward. Similarly, litigation of Plaintiff’s claims, which are 

based on his own treatment history and medical records, would not appear to require 

“extensive investigation and discovery,” as Plaintiff argues. Plaintiff’s pleadings in this 

case reflect an appreciation of the legal issues and standards and an ability to express 

them adequately in writing. The Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately 

articulate his claims. Finally, although Plaintiff has indicated that he contacted four law 

firms to request assistance of counsel, he does not say when he contacted them or 

when or if he received a response. His efforts to date do not demonstrate that further 

efforts to secure counsel would be futile. See e.g., Thornton v. Schwarzenegger, 2011 

WL 90320, *3–4 (S.D.Cal. 2011) (cases cited). 

III. ORDER

Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that Plaintiff’s motion for 

appointment of counsel, filed June 3, 2015 (ECF No. 13), be DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 4, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01754-DAD-JDP Document 14 Filed 06/04/15 Page 3 of 3