Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00312/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00312-17/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 Hussein Ali Kietty is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On July 5, 2016, Plaintiff filed a third motion for the appointment of counsel. As Plaintiff was 

advised previously, 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 

HUSSEIN ALI KIETTY,

 Plaintiff,

v.

A. WALKER, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-00312-DAD-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 

PLAINTIFF’S THIRD MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

[ECF No. 68]

Case 1:13-cv-00312-SAB Document 71 Filed 07/08/16 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 finds 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 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 better-particularly in the realm of discovery and the securing of expert 

testimony.”) Plaintiff’s lack of education and lack of resources do not demonstrate exceptional 

circumstances. This Court is faced with cases brought by prisoners in similar circumstances almost 

daily. In addition, Plaintiff’s claim that this case will likely proceed to trial and counsel would helpful 

in litigating the case does not present an exceptional circumstance warranting appointment of counsel. 

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s third motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY 

DENIED, without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 7, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00312-SAB Document 71 Filed 07/08/16 Page 2 of 2