Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-01675/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-01675-22/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 Barry Lee Brookins is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, filed on June 10, 

2020.

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.

///

///

///

BARRY LEE BROOKINS,

 Plaintiff,

v.

M. HERNANDEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 1:17-cv-01675-AWI-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE

[ECF No. 78]

Case 1:17-cv-01675-AWI-SAB Document 80 Filed 06/11/20 Page 1 of 3
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

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 does find that neither the interests of justice nor exceptional 

circumstances warrant appointment of counsel at this time. LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th 

Cir. 1987); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff requests the Court 

appoint counsel based upon the following: the complexity of the case; his imprisonment greatly limits 

his ability to litigate; he is unable to afford counsel; he has no legal education; and the appointment of 

counsel would “better enable Plaintiff to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses.” Mot. at 3.

Plaintiff is proceeding on an Eighth Amendment claim against Hernandez and Williams. Plaintiff 

contends Hernandez and Williams should not have placed him on CSW after he passed their metal detector 

searches and showed them a medical chrono indicating he could not take off his underwear, bend over, or 

squat for an unclothed body search. The legal issues in this case are not complex, and Plaintiff has 

adequately litigated this case to date. Although the allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint were sufficient 

to state a plausible claim for relief, Plaintiff has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits, and 

Defendants have filed a motion for summary judgment on the merits of the Plaintiff’s claims. Thus, it 

is premature to determine that there is a likelihood of success on the merits. 

While a pro se litigant may be better 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 v. Rowland, 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.”) Circumstances common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited 

law library access, do not establish exceptional circumstances that warrant a request for voluntary 

assistance of counsel. Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s arguments are not exceptional 

Case 1:17-cv-01675-AWI-SAB Document 80 Filed 06/11/20 Page 2 of 3
3

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

circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel at this time. Accordingly, Plaintiff motion for 

appointment of counsel is DENIED, without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 11, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:17-cv-01675-AWI-SAB Document 80 Filed 06/11/20 Page 3 of 3