Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00334/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00334-0/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

MATTHEW FORREY HOLGERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

DAVID DAVIES, et al.,

Defendants.

1:16-cv-00334-EPG-(PC) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

(EPG No. 6.)

On March 28, 2016, Plaintiff filed a 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 an 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 

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

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-00334-AWI-EPG Document 12 Filed 04/01/16 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 does not find the required exceptional circumstances. 

Plaintiff asserts that he is unable to afford counsel and his imprisonment will greatly limit his 

ability to litigate. This does not make his case exceptional. At this early stage in the proceedings, 

the Court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. Plaintiff 

filed the Complaint on March 10, 2016, less than a month ago, and the Complaint awaits the 

Court=s screening required under 28 U.S.C. 1915. Thus, to date the Court has not found any 

cognizable claims in Plaintiff=s Complaint for which to initiate service of process, and no other 

parties have yet appeared. Moreover, based on a review of the record in this case, the Court does 

not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Therefore, Plaintiff=s motion shall 

be denied without prejudice to renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings. 

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

DENIED, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 1, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00334-AWI-EPG Document 12 Filed 04/01/16 Page 2 of 2