Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01248/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01248-29/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

HORACE THOMAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

S. HEBERLING, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:12-cv-01248-AWI-SAB-PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S FIFTH

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 

COUNSEL AND DENYING REQUEST TO 

STRIKE DEPOSITION AND FOR 

SANCTIONS

[ECF NO. 123]

Plaintiff Thomas is a state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 8, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for 

the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 123.) Plaintiff also seeks to strike his deposition and 

impose monetary sanctions. 

This is Plaintiff’s fifth motion for the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff first requested 

counsel on March 25, 2013, on the ground that retaliation was ongoing. (ECF No. 18.) 

Plaintiff’s second request, filed on August 21, 2013, was on the ground of indigency. (ECF No. 

25.) Plaintiff’s third request, filed on August 5, 2015, was on the ground that Plaintiff opposed 

the taking of his deposition. (ECF No. 117.) Plaintiff’s fourth request, filed on August 17, 2015, 

referred to his medical condition. (ECF No. 120.) Plaintiff’s fifth request for counsel, currently 

before the Court, is on the ground that Plaintiff objects to documents defense counsel referred to 

in Plaintiff’s deposition. (ECF No. 123.) All previous requests for counsel were denied on the 

ground that exceptional circumstances did not exist which is still the case today. 

Plaintiff is advised that 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 

Case 1:12-cv-01248-AWI-SAB Document 124 Filed 09/10/15 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

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 195(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 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 has considered Plaintiff’s moving papers, but does not find 

the required exceptional circumstances. LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987); 

Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff objections to documents 

referred to by defense counsel in his deposition, and contends that defense counsel has “mislead 

the court.” For reasons noted below, Plaintiff’s motion to strike the deposition and for sanctions 

should be denied. Regarding Plaintiff’s fifth request for the appointment of counsel, the 

difficulties experienced by Plaintiff in being deposed do not constitute exceptional 

circumstances. 

While a pro se litigant may be setter 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, 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.”) 

Plaintiff also seeks to strike the deposition and to impose sanctions for the conduct of 

defense counsel. Regarding any objections to the deposition, the procedure available to Plaintiff 

is set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(c)(2). Plaintiff also has the opportunity to 

review a transcript of the deposition and sign a statement listing any changes and the reasons for 

making them. Rule 30(e)(1). As to Plaintiff’s request for sanctions, Plaintiff has not made a 

Case 1:12-cv-01248-AWI-SAB Document 124 Filed 09/10/15 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

showing that defense counsel has impeded, delayed or frustrated the fair examination of Plaintiff. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(d)(2).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED.

2. Plaintiff’s request to strike the deposition and for sanctions is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 10, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01248-AWI-SAB Document 124 Filed 09/10/15 Page 3 of 3