Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01253/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01253-11/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 Melvin R. Arrant is proceeding pro se and in forma pauepris in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, filed November 1, 

2021. 

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 

MELVIN R. ARRANT,

 Plaintiff,

v.

KELLY SANTORO, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:20-cv-01253-DAD-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE

(ECF No. 42)

Case 1:20-cv-01253-KES-SAB Document 43 Filed 11/03/21 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 seeks appointment of 

counsel in order to propound discovery and conduct factual investigation. Plaintiff is proceeding on 

claims of retaliation and excessive force and the legal issues present in this action are not complex, 

and Plaintiff has thoroughly set forth his allegations in the complaint. 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 betterparticularly in the realm of discovery and the securing of expert testimony.”) Accordingly, Plaintiff 

motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED, without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 3, 2021 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-01253-KES-SAB Document 43 Filed 11/03/21 Page 2 of 2