Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00149/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00149-1/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY MORGAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. MAYS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:16-cv-00149-BAM-PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND 

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 

COUNSEL

(ECF NO. 12)

Plaintiff Anthony Morgan is a state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On June 20, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 12.) 

Plaintiff previously sought the appointment of counsel, which was denied on March 30, 2016. 

(ECF No. 8). 

Plaintiff is advised that there is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, 

Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require any 

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 

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

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.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

Case 1:16-cv-00149-DAD-BAM Document 13 Filed 06/22/16 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

In the present case, the Court has considered Plaintiff’s moving papers, but does not find 

the required exceptional circumstances. LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987); 

Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff is proceeding on a claim of 

deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. The legal issues present in this action are 

not complex, and Plaintiff has thoroughly set forth his arguments in the complaint filed in this 

action. Plaintiff argues that, due to his hand injury, it is difficult for him to write and he needs 

the assistance of other inmates, and that it is difficult for him to access the law library. Plaintiff 

also argues that he is indigent and cannot afford to hire an attorney. In forma pauperis status 

alone does not alone entitle Plaintiff to appointed counsel. That it is difficult for Plaintiff to 

access the law library does not constitute exceptional circumstances. 

While a pro se litigant may be setter served with the assistance of counsel, so long as a 

pro se litigant, such as Plaintiff in this instance, is able to “articulate his claims against the 

relative complexity of the matter,” the “exceptional circumstances” which might require the 

appointment of counsel do not exist. Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (finding no abuse of discretion 

under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e) when district court denied appointment of counsel despite fact that pro 

se prisoner “may well have fared better – particularly in the realm of discovery and the securing 

of expert testimony.”) Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for the 

appointment of counsel is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 22, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00149-DAD-BAM Document 13 Filed 06/22/16 Page 2 of 2