Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01896/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01896-30/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

JAMISI JERMAINE CALLOWAY,

Plaintiff,

v.

C/O W. HAYWARD AND C/O J. OAKS,

Defendants.

1:08-cv-01896-LJO-GSA- PC) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL OR 

EXPERT WITNESS

(Document # 134)

I. BACKGROUND

Jamisi Jermaine Calloway (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds on the Third Amended 

Complaint filed by Plaintiff on October 5, 2009, against defendants C/O Hayward and C/O Oaks 

for use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 20.) This case is 

scheduled for jury trial on April 22, 2014, before District Judge Lawrence J. O’Neill. 

On February 5, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel or the 

appointment of an expert witness. (Doc. 134.)

///

Case 1:08-cv-01896-LJO-GSA Document 136 Filed 02/06/14 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

II. 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 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).

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

if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations 

which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. A review of the record in 

this case shows that Plaintiff is responsive, adequately communicates, and is able to articulate his 

claims. The court notes that Plaintiff has filed several other cases pro se and appears able to 

navigate the federal court system. The legal issue in this case B whether defendants used 

excessive force B is not complex, and this court is faced with similar cases almost daily. Further, 

the court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. Id. 

Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel shall be denied.

III. MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF EXPERT WITNESS

In the alternative, Plaintiff requests a court-appointed expert witness. The expenditure of 

public funds on behalf of an indigent litigant is proper only when authorized by Congress, see

Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210 (9th Cir. 1989) (citations omitted), and the in forma pauperis statute 

does not authorize the expenditure of public funds for the purpose sought by Plaintiff in the 

instant request. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of an expert witness shall be 

denied.

Case 1:08-cv-01896-LJO-GSA Document 136 Filed 02/06/14 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

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff=s motion for the appointment of counsel or an expert 

witness, filed on May 1, 2013, is HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 6, 2014 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-01896-LJO-GSA Document 136 Filed 02/06/14 Page 3 of 3