Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00747/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00747-5/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

JAMISI J. CALLOWAY,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. AKANNO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-cv-00747-SAB-PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND 

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 

COUNSEL

(ECF NO. 30)

Plaintiff Jamisi J. Calloway is a state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in 

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

On May 26, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 30.) 

Plaintiff’s first request for the appointment of counsel was denied on May 23, 2013. (ECF No.5.) 

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).

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

Case 1:13-cv-00747-LJO-SAB Document 32 Filed 05/27/16 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

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 serious medical needs. The legal issues present in this action are not 

complex, and Plaintiff has thoroughly set forth his arguments in the third amended complaint 

filed in this action. Plaintiff argues that he has tried to obtain counsel, and that it is difficult for 

him to litigate this case while he is incarcerated. Plaintiff argues that it is difficult for him to 

obtain information. In forma pauperis status alone does not alone entitle Plaintiff to appointed 

counsel. That it is difficult for Plaintiff to obtain information 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: May 27, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00747-LJO-SAB Document 32 Filed 05/27/16 Page 2 of 2