Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01635/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01635-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 560
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PHILLIP REID,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMANDA M. WOOD,

Defendant.

Case No.: 1:18-cv-01635-DAD-JLT (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Doc. 31)

Plaintiff requests the temporary appointment of counsel for his deposition on January 21, 

2020. (Doc. 31.) As Plaintiff concedes, (see id. at 1), he does not have a constitutional right to 

appointed counsel in a section 1983 action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 

1997), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent plaintiffs under 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(1). See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 304-05 (1989). However, in 

“exceptional circumstances,” the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant 

to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.

Given that the Court has no reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the 

Court will seek volunteer counsel only in extraordinary cases. In determining whether 

“exceptional circumstances exist, a 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).

Case 1:18-cv-01635-DAD-JLT Document 32 Filed 01/16/20 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

In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances at this 

time. Even if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and has made serious 

allegations that, if proven, would entitle him to relief, his case or his upcoming deposition are not 

extraordinary. The Court is faced with similar cases almost daily. In addition, at this stage in the 

proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination on whether Plaintiff is likely to succeed on 

the merits; and, based on a review of the records in this case, the Court does not find that Plaintiff 

cannot adequately articulate his claims. See id.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of 

counsel without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 16, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-01635-DAD-JLT Document 32 Filed 01/16/20 Page 2 of 2