Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00399/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00399-21/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

JESSIE L. SERRANO,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

SERGEANT JEFFERY L. LUCAS,

 Defendant.

1:11-cv-00399-EPG-PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTIONS FOR COURT-APPOINTED 

COUNSEL

(ECF Nos. 93, 99.)

This case is scheduled for trial on March 8, 2016. On February 4, 2016 and February 

17, 2016, Plaintiff filed motions for the appointment of counsel. (ECF Nos. 93, 98.)

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 (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 

Aexceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success 

Case 1:11-cv-00399-EPG Document 103 Filed 02/24/16 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

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).

In the present case, Plaintiff argues that exceptional circumstances exist because he has 

been relying on other inmates to litigate for him and has no one to help him prepare for trial. 

Plaintiff also asserts that he has been diagnosed with neurological impairment resulting from a 

gunshot to his head, and he takes two types of seizure medications. Further, Plaintiff asserts 

that he is a mental health prisoner and is taking psychiatric medications. Plaintiff contends that 

there is a high probability he will succeed on the merits at trial, because Defendant admits that 

Plaintiff was severely beaten by inmates and shot on the top of his head by officers. 

Plaintiff has not set forth any evidence that he was diagnosed with neurological 

impairment, and his recent handwritten motions do not reflect mental impairment. That said, 

Plaintiff’s physical and mental issues and lack of knowledge alone do not make Plaintiff’s case 

exceptional. Even if Defendant agrees that Plaintiff was injured, the fact that Plaintiff suffered 

injuries does not prove that Defendant failed to protect Plaintiff. The Court cannot find that 

Plaintiff is likely to prevail on the merits at trial. Plaintiff’s failure-to-protect claims are not 

complex, and based on Plaintiff’s participation in the January 25, 2016 telephonic hearing, it 

appears that Plaintiff can adequately articulate his claims. Thus, the Court does not find the 

required exceptional circumstances, and Plaintiff’s motions shall be denied.

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff=s motions for the 

appointment of counsel, filed on February 4, 2016 and February 17, 2016, are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 24, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00399-EPG Document 103 Filed 02/24/16 Page 2 of 2