Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-02044/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-02044-8/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

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

Plaintiff Anthony Johnson is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s claim that he was denied adequate medical care in 

violation of the Eighth Amendment. 

Now pending before is Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel, filed March 5, 2015. 

(ECF No. 38.) There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 

113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require any 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 

ANTHONY JOHNSON,

 Plaintiff,

v.

DR. SISODIA, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-02044-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST 

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

[ECF No. 38]

Case 1:12-cv-02044-LJO-SAB Document 39 Filed 03/10/15 Page 1 of 2
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

“exceptional circumstances exist, the 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). 

In the present case, the Court does find that neither the interests of justice nor exceptional 

circumstances warrant appointment of counsel at this time. LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th 

Cir. 1987); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff is proceeding on a claim 

of inadequate medical care and the legal issues present in this action are not complex, and Plaintiff has 

thoroughly set forth his allegations in the complaint and various motions for relief filed with the Court. 

While a pro se litigant may be better served with the assistance of counsel, so long as a pro se 

litigant, such as Plaintiff in this instance, is able to “articulate his claims against the relative 

complexity of the matter,” the “exceptional circumstances” which might require the appointment of 

counsel do not exist. Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d at 1525 (finding no abuse of discretion under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e) when district court denied appointment of counsel despite fact that pro se prisoner 

“may well have fared better-particularly in the realm of discovery and the securing of expert 

testimony.”) Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s arguments regarding his ability to obtain discovery 

are not exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel at this time. Plaintiff’s 

reliance on a fellow inmate to assist in prosecuting this matter does not demonstrate extraordinary 

circumstances for appointment of counsel. This Court is faced with similar circumstances in almost

every pro se prisoner case and such cases have progressed through discovery, law and motion, and 

trial despite such circumstances. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel must be 

DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 9, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-02044-LJO-SAB Document 39 Filed 03/10/15 Page 2 of 2