Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00925/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00925-23/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

C. DWAYNE GILMORE, 

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

D. AUGUSTUS, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:12-cv-00925-LJO-GSA-PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(ECF No. 128.)

On June 19, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking 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 an 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, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (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 

of 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 1:12-cv-00925-JLT-SAB Document 132 Filed 07/09/15 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

Plaintiff asserts that he cannot afford to retain counsel, and he provides evidence that he 

has attempted, without success, to acquire pro bono counsel. Plaintiff asserts that he has 

limited education and little experience in legal research, reasoning, standards, and writing. 

Plaintiff also asserts that he is unfamiliar with federal procedural rules, rules of court, and rules 

of civil procedure. 

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

serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case does not appear 

exceptional. At this stage of the proceedings, the court cannot make a determination that 

Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. The legal issue upon which this case now proceeds

B whether defendants used excessive force -- is not complex, and this court is faced with 

similar cases almost daily. Moreover, based on a review of the record in this case, the court 

does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Therefore, Plaintiff’s 

motion shall be denied, without prejudice to renewal of the motion at a later stage of the 

proceedings.

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of 

counsel is HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 9, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00925-JLT-SAB Document 132 Filed 07/09/15 Page 2 of 2