Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01415/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01415-3/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

DAMIEN T. DOSTER,

Plaintiff,

v.

P. LLAMAS, et al.,

Defendant.

1:15-cv-01415-DAD-GSA (PC) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

(Document# 30)

On October 11, 2016, 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 

Aexceptional 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).

Case 1:15-cv-01415-DAD-GSA Document 32 Filed 10/13/16 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 2

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

Plaintiff argues that he is unskilled in the law, cannot afford to retain an attorney, has a 

meritorious case, and has been denied relevant evidence by Defendants. This does not make 

Plaintiff’s case exceptional under the law. At this stage in the proceedings, the court cannot make 

a determination that plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. Defendants= motion for summary 

judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies is now pending and may dispose of most 

of Plaintiff’s claims. Moreover, based on the record in this case, the court does not find that 

plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Further, the legal issues in this case, concerning 

conditions of confinement, are not complex. 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: October 13, 2016 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01415-DAD-GSA Document 32 Filed 10/13/16 Page 2 of 2