Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01092/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01092-14/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 Billy Coy Cochran is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. 

On October 28, 2016, Plaintiff filed a “REQUEST FOR ACCOMMODATIONS BY 

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES AND RESPONSE”, under California Rules of Court 1.100. In 

response to the impairment necessitating accommodation, Plaintiff writes “Post-traumatic stress 

disorder, depressive mood disorder, poly substance abuse dependence, anti-social personality disorder, 

and gender identity disorder,” and Plaintiff requests the appointment of counsel to assist him in this 

litigation. (ECF No. 65.)

 As an initial matter, Plaintiff is advised that federal courts, such as this Court, are not bound by 

California Rules of Court. Further, to the extent Plaintiff requests the appointment of counsel in this 

case, his request must be denied. Plaintiff has previously filed five requests for the appointment of 

counsel, which have all been denied, without prejudice. (ECF Nos. 3, 12, 15, 20, 47, 48, 50, 51.) 

As Plaintiff is well aware, he 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 

BILLY COY COCHRAN,

 Plaintiff,

v.

E. AGUIRRE, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01092-AWI-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 

PLAINTIFF’S SIXTH MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

[ECF No. 65]

Case 1:15-cv-01092-AWI-SAB Document 66 Filed 10/31/16 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

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). 

The test for exceptional circumstances requires the Court to evaluate the Plaintiff’s 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. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 

1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Plaintiff has not demonstrated new or 

different circumstances to merit appointment of counsel in this case. Circumstances common to most 

prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not establish exceptional 

circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. Although Plaintiff 

attaches medical documents to his request which indicate that he suffers from depression and posttraumatic stress disorder, it is apparent that Plaintiff is being evaluated and treated for such condition. 

A review of the record reflects that Plaintiff is articulate and able to comply with court orders, as well 

as file pro se motions. In sum, the Court finds Plaintiff’s reasons for requesting appointment of 

counsel indistinguishable from the reasons asserted by most prisoners. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s sixth 

motion for appointment of counsel is be DENIED without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 31, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01092-AWI-SAB Document 66 Filed 10/31/16 Page 2 of 2