Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01299/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01299-26/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

RAHN G. THOMPSON,

Plaintiff,

vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants. 

________________________________/

1:07-cv-01299 LJO GSA (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

( #91)

On January 28, 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 1:07-cv-01299-LJO-GSA Document 93 Filed 02/21/13 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. At

this stage in the proceedings, the court cannot make a determination that plaintiff is likely to

succeed on the merits. While the court has found that Plaintiff states cognizable claims,

Defendants have not yet responded to the complaint. Based on the record in this case, the court

does not find that plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Moreover, the legal issues in

this case – whether defendants failed to protect plaintiff – are not complex, and this court is

faced with similar cases almost daily. Therefore, plaintiff’s motion 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: February 21, 2013 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

220hhe UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-2-

Case 1:07-cv-01299-LJO-GSA Document 93 Filed 02/21/13 Page 2 of 2