Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01410/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01410-4/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 Keith Darnell Denegal is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On February 1, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for the 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 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 

KEITH DARNELL DENEGAL,

 Plaintiff,

v.

P.D. BRAZELTON,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01410-DAD-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE

[ECF No. 29]

Case 1:14-cv-01410-DAD-SAB Document 30 Filed 02/03/16 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). 

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). 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. In the present case, 

the Court does not find extraordinary circumstances to warrant appointment of counsel. 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 betterparticularly in the realm of discovery and the securing of expert testimony.”) Plaintiff is proceeding 

on a First Amendment claim against Defendant Brazelton, and Plaintiff has been able to articulate his 

claims and litigate this action. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel will be 

DENIED without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 3, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01410-DAD-SAB Document 30 Filed 02/03/16 Page 2 of 2