Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00669/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00669-4/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 Nathan Charles Carey is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for 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 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 

“exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on the 

NATHAN CHARLES CAREY,

 Plaintiff,

v.

A. ALPHONSO, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-00669-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE

[ECF No. 22]

Case 1:13-cv-00669-DAD-SAB Document 23 Filed 12/05/14 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

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 not find the required exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff 

contends that he has had to learn the law and procedures pertaining to section 1983 cases and has 

become confused and overwhelmed by the steps required to pursue this case. He contends he cannot 

effectively exercise his rights to continue this case without proper representation. To date, Plaintiff 

has been able to articulate his claims and respond to the Court’s orders. Although legal matters can be 

inherently complex, this factor is common to all prisoner litigation handled by pro se litigants. The 

instant case does not present extraordinary legal or factual complexity, as Plaintiff is proceeding on a 

claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment 

against Defendant Doctor Alphonso only, who is represented by the California Attorney General’s 

Office. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed demonstrate exceptional circumstances to warrant the 

appointment of counsel and his motion is DENIED, without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 5, 2014 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00669-DAD-SAB Document 23 Filed 12/05/14 Page 2 of 2