Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01215/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01215-1/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

JAMES HENRY RODRIGUEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. LEWIS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01215-LJO-BAM-PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND 

DENYING REQUEST TO STAY THIS 

ACTION

[ECF NO. 9]

Plaintiff Rodriguez is a Fresno County Jail inmate appearing pro se and in forma pauperis

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

On August 26, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for the appointment of counsel. (ECF No.

9.) Plaintiff also seeks to stay this action until he has been released from the custody of the 

Fresno County Jail. 

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 

195(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).

Case 1:15-cv-01215-LJO-BAM Document 10 Filed 09/09/15 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 has considered Plaintiff’s moving papers, but does not find 

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 

excessive force and the legal issues present in this action are not complex, and Plaintiff has 

thoroughly set forth his arguments in the complaint filed in this action. Plaintiff argues that it is 

difficult for him to obtain information and needs the appointment of counsel. 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.”) 

Plaintiff also seeks to stay this action pending his release from Fresno County Jail. 

Plaintiff makes no argument or showing as to why this action should be stayed other than the 

inconvenience of incarceration. Plaintiff is advised that the Court will not stay this action 

pending Plaintiff’s release from custody. Plaintiff initiated this action, and is responsible for 

prosecuting it. The fact of incarceration does not justify a stay of this action.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED.

2. Plaintiff’s request for a stay of this action is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 9, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01215-LJO-BAM Document 10 Filed 09/09/15 Page 2 of 2