Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01503/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01503-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRIAN EDWARDS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

KERN VALLEY STATE PRISON, et al.,

Defendants. 

__________________________________/

1:12-cv-001503-GSA (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(DOCUMENT #3)

On September 13, 2012, 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).

-1-

Case 1:12-cv-01503-EPG Document 6 Filed 09/20/12 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

In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. At this

early stage in the proceedings, the court cannot make a determination that plaintiff is likely to

succeed on the merits. Plaintiff filed this case a week ago on September 13, 2012, and the

Complaint awaits the court’s screening process required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Thus, service of

process has not been initiated, and no other parties have appeared. Moreover, upon review of the

Complaint, the court does not find that plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id., see

Complaint, Doc. 1. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel 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: September 20, 2012 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

220hhe UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-2-

Case 1:12-cv-01503-EPG Document 6 Filed 09/20/12 Page 2 of 2