Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00648/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00648-2/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

TERRY MACKEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

RUDD, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:24-cv-00648-JLT-BAM (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT

COUNSEL

(ECF No. 20)

Plaintiff Terry Mackey (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on 

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint against: (1) Defendants Rudd and Ram for excessive force 

in violation of the Eighth Amendment; (2) Defendant Mix for failure to prevent harm in violation 

of the Eighth Amendment; (3) Defendants Rudd and Ram for a state law claim for battery; and 

(4) Defendants Rudd, Ram, and Mix for a state law claim for negligence.

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, filed January 

2, 2025. (ECF No. 20.) Plaintiff states that he is unable to afford counsel, and the claims are 

complex because they are based on allegations of excessive use of force resulting in injury and 

may require expert testimony. The claims involve multiple defendants and witnesses and will 

require extensive discovery including confidential material, which Plaintiff cannot access due to 

his incarceration. Plaintiff is limited in knowledge of law, and appointment of counsel would 

Case 1:24-cv-00648-JLT-BAM Document 21 Filed 01/06/25 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

provide him the opportunity to obtain representation equally qualified with the counsel provided 

by the state for Defendants. Plaintiff has contacted 5 or more attorneys seeking assistance, with 

no luck. (Id.)

Defendants have not yet been served and have not had the opportunity to respond to 

Plaintiff’s motion, but the Court finds a response unnecessary. The motion is deemed submitted. 

Local Rule 230(l).

Plaintiff is informed that he does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in 

this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), rev’d in part on other 

grounds, 154 F.3d 952, 954 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998), and the court cannot require an attorney to 

represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the S. Dist. 

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, a 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.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

The Court has considered Plaintiff’s request, but does not find the required exceptional 

circumstances. Even if it is assumed that Plaintiff has made serious allegations which, if proved, 

would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This Court is faced with similar cases filed 

almost daily by prisoners who must also conduct legal research, obtain discovery, and litigate 

their cases without the assistance of counsel and with limited access to witnesses or expert 

testimony.

Furthermore, at this stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that 

Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. Although Plaintiff’s complaint was screened and 

found to state cognizable claims, this does not mean that Plaintiff’s claims are likely to succeed 

on the merits. Finally, based on a review of the record in this case, the Court does not find that 

Case 1:24-cv-00648-JLT-BAM Document 21 Filed 01/06/25 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

Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel, (ECF No. 20), is HEREBY DENIED, 

without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 6, 2025 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00648-JLT-BAM Document 21 Filed 01/06/25 Page 3 of 3