Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00988/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00988-3/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH SCHULTZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS AND

REHABILITATION, et al.,

Defendants. 

________________________________/

CASE No. 1:11-cv-00988-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(ECF No. 19)

Kenneth Schultz (Plaintiff), a state prisoner incarcerated at Corcoran State

Prison (CSP) where the events in issue occurred, is proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action filed June 15, 2011 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

(ECF No. 1.) This matter proceeds on Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint claim of

inadequate medical care against Defendant Kim. (ECF Nos. 9, 18.) Defendant Kim has

not yet been served. Defendant Kim has not appeared in this action. 

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Legal Counsel

filed March 13, 2013. (ECF No. 19.)

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

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

grounds, 154 F.3d 952, 954 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998), and the Court can not require an

-1-

Case 1:11-cv-00988-DAD-MJS Document 21 Filed 03/18/13 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

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, the district court must evaluate

both the likelihood of success of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate

his or her claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id.

Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together before

reaching a decision on request of counsel under section 1915(d).” Wilborn v.

Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970

(9th Cir. 2009). 

The burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances is on the 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).”)

In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional

circumstances. 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. Further, Defendant

Kim has not yet filed a response. The Court can not make a determination at this early

stage of the litigation that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. The medical

indifference claim in issue does not appear to be novel or unduly complex. The facts

alleged to date appear straightforward and unlikely to involve extensive investigation

-2-

Case 1:11-cv-00988-DAD-MJS Document 21 Filed 03/18/13 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

and discovery.

The papers filed by Plaintiff in this case reflect an appreciation of the legal issues

and standards and an ability to express same adequately in writing.

Finally, nothing suggests that Plaintiff has made diligent effort to secure

counsel. Plaintiff’s lack of funds alone does not necessarily mean efforts to secure 1

counsel would be futile.

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No.

19) is HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 18, 2013 /s/Michael J. Seng 

12eob4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

See e.g. Thornton v. Schwarzenegger, 2011 W L 90320, *3-4 (S.D. Cal. January 11, 2011)

1

(cases cited).

-3-

Case 1:11-cv-00988-DAD-MJS Document 21 Filed 03/18/13 Page 3 of 3