Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00538/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00538-8/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 Tracy Taylor is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s third motion for the appointment of counsel, filed 

May 5, 2014. (ECF No. 43.) Plaintiff previously filed two motions for the appointment of counsel,

both were denied as the Court found neither the interests of justice nor exceptional circumstances to 

warranted the appointment of counsel in this case. (ECF Nos. 26, 41.) 

This action is proceeding against Defendants Shaye O’Hanneson, Rene Duran, and Howard 

Smith for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Defendants filed an answer to the 

complaint on November 12, 2013. On November 22, 2013, the Court issued a discovery and 

scheduling order, setting the discovery deadline cut-off date of July 22, 2014, and the dispositive 

motion deadline of October 2, 2014. (ECF No. 36.) 

TRACY TAYLOR,

 Plaintiff,

v.

SHAYE O’HANNESON, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:11-cv-00538-LJO-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

THIRD MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT 

OF COUNSEL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE

[ECF No. 43]

Case 1:11-cv-00538-SAB Document 45 Filed 05/06/14 Page 1 of 3
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

In the present motion for appointment of counsel, Plaintiff contends that he “has come across 

a particular problem that he cannot handle by himself.” (ECF No. 43, at 1.) Plaintiff submits that 

“evidence exist[s] that will prove each element of Plaintiff[’s] claim but he is unable to obtain the 

evidence because it is beyond his capabilities to do so.” (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff references a videotape 

interview of himself and a copy of the trial transcripts of the criminal proceedings in the Kern County 

Superior Court in which Defendants O’Hanneson and Duran testified against Plaintiff.

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 does find 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). The Court previously denied 

Plaintiff’s requests and nothing has substantially changed in this case since that time to change the 

Court’s analysis. 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 

Case 1:11-cv-00538-SAB Document 45 Filed 05/06/14 Page 2 of 3
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

testimony.”) Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s arguments, without supporting documentation, 

regarding his ability to obtain discovery are not exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment 

of counsel at this time. Accordingly, Plaintiff motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED, without 

prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 6, 2014 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00538-SAB Document 45 Filed 05/06/14 Page 3 of 3