Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00736/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00736-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDREW MICHAEL TUCKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOE A. LIZARRAGA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-00736-AWI-JDP

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

ECF No. 26

Plaintiff Andrew Michael Tucker is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this 

civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 15, 2020, plaintiff filed a motion 

requesting appointed of counsel. ECF No. 26. Plaintiff argues that that he lacks knowledge of 

the law and needs to undergo physical therapy for a variety of injuries. Id.

Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, see Rand 

v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court lacks the authority to require an 

attorney to represent plaintiff, see Mallard v. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of 

Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). The court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel. See

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. However, without a means to compensate 

counsel, the court will seek volunteer counsel only in exceptional circumstances. In determining 

whether such circumstances exist, “the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success 

Case 1:19-cv-00736-AWI-HBK Document 27 Filed 04/16/20 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

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.” Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (internal quotation marks and 

citations omitted).

The court cannot conclude that exceptional circumstances requiring counsel are present 

here. The issues raised by the complaint are not unusually complicated and, at this stage in the 

proceedings, plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits or great 

difficulty articulating his claims. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel 

is denied without prejudice. The court may revisit this issue at a later stage of the proceedings if 

justice so requires. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 16, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

No. 205. 

Case 1:19-cv-00736-AWI-HBK Document 27 Filed 04/16/20 Page 2 of 2