Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00869/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00869-3/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

OMAR JEFFERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. NUCKLES,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:14-cv-00869-AWI-SAB PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(ECF NO. 23)

Plaintiff Omar Jefferson a state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this 

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On April 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 23.) 

Plaintiff has not previously sought the appointment of counsel. 

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 

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 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 

Case 1:14-cv-00869-AWI-SAB Document 24 Filed 04/22/16 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

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 is proceeding on a claim of 

failure to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The legal issues present in this action 

are not complex, and Plaintiff has thoroughly set forth his arguments in the complaint filed in

this action. Plaintiff argues that he has limited law library access, and it is difficult for him to 

obtain information. Plaintiff also argues that if this case proceeds to trial, counsel would be 

necessary to help him cross-examine witnesses. In forma pauperis status alone does not alone 

entitle Plaintiff to appointed counsel. That it is difficult for Plaintiff to obtain information does 

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.”) Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for the 

appointment of counsel is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 22, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00869-AWI-SAB Document 24 Filed 04/22/16 Page 2 of 2