Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01092/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01092-4/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

Plaintiff Mark Schmidt is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On February 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed a second 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 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 

MARK SCHMIDT,

 Plaintiff,

v.

RODRIGUES, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01092-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING SECOND MOTION 

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

[ECF No. 18]

Case 1:14-cv-01092-DAD-SAB Document 20 Filed 02/26/15 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

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 does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even if it 

assumed that plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations which, if 

proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. The fact that Plaintiff has limited 

access to legal materials and limited knowledge of law does not constitute extraordinary 

circumstances. On October 24, 2014, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s original complaint, with leave to 

amend, for failure to state a cognizable claim. At this early stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot 

make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits, and based on a review of the 

record in this case, the Court does not find that plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id.

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY 

DENIED, without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 25, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01092-DAD-SAB Document 20 Filed 02/26/15 Page 2 of 2