Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01822/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01822-0/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

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES A. EDWARDS,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. SMITH,

Defendant.

1:20-cv-01822-GSA (PC) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

(Document# 6)

On May 3, 2021, 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.

Case 1:20-cv-01822-JLT-GSA Document 7 Filed 05/06/21 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

Plaintiff seeks counsel because he does not know how to file a motion without assistance. 

This does not make plaintiff’s case exceptional under the law. At this early stage in the 

proceedings, the court cannot make a determination that plaintiff is likely to succeed on the 

merits. Plaintiff’s complaint awaits the court’s screening required under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Thus, 

to date the court has not found any cognizable claims in plaintiff’s complaint for which to initiate 

service of process, and no other parties have yet appeared. The legal issue in this case, whether 

defendants used excessive force against plaintiff, is not complex. Moreover, based on a review of 

the record in this case, the court finds that plaintiff can 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.

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY 

DENIED, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 6, 2021 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-01822-JLT-GSA Document 7 Filed 05/06/21 Page 2 of 2