Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00124/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00124-5/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY L. BROWN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

KEN CLARK, et al.,

Defendants. 

________________________________/

1:10-cv-00124-GSA (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

( #41)

On March 29, 2013, 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

“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 claims pro se in light of the

complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

-1-

Case 1:10-cv-00124-GSA Document 42 Filed 04/04/13 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

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

review of the record in this case shows that plaintiff is responsive, adequately communicates, and

is able to articulate his claims. The court notes that plaintiff has filed nine other cases pro se in this

district and appears able to navigate the federal court system. The legal issue in this case – whether

defendants failed to protect plaintiff – is not complex, and this court is faced with similar cases

almost daily. Further, at this stage in the proceedings, the court cannot make a determination that

plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. Id. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of

counsel 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 4, 2013 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

220hhe UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-2-

Case 1:10-cv-00124-GSA Document 42 Filed 04/04/13 Page 2 of 2