Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01092/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01092-10/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 Billy Coy Cochran is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s fifth motion for the appointment of voluntary counsel, 

filed September 12, 2016. 

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.

///

///

BILLY COY COCHRAN,

 Plaintiff,

v.

E. AGUIRRE,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01092-AWI-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 

PLAINTIFF’S FIFTH MOTION FOR THE 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

[ECF No. 50]

Case 1:15-cv-01092-AWI-SAB Document 51 Filed 09/15/16 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

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). 

The test for exceptional circumstances requires the Court to evaluate the Plaintiff’s 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. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 

1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Plaintiff has not demonstrated new or 

different circumstances to merit appointment of counsel in this case, and Plaintiff simply presents the 

same arguments previously considered by the Court in denying his prior motions for appointment of 

counsel. Circumstances common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law 

library access, do not establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary 

assistance of counsel. Furthermore, appointment of counsel is not necessary for the parties to conduct 

effective discovery. In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional 

circumstances. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s fifth motion for appointment of counsel will be DENIED 

without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 14, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01092-AWI-SAB Document 51 Filed 09/15/16 Page 2 of 2