Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02177/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02177-17/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-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT HAYNES,

Plaintiff,

vs.

D.K. SISTO et al.,

Defendants. 

________________________________/

CIV-S-08-2177-SPG (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

On June 21, 2010, 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Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds by 154 F.3d

952, 954 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc), and the court cannot require an attorney to represent

plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for S. Dist. of Iowa, 490

U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the

voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to § 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, a 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. (first alteration in original) (internal quotation

Case 2:08-cv-02177-DAD Document 49 Filed 06/25/10 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-

marks omitted).

In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. 

Even though plaintiff is apparently not well versed in the law and he has made serious allegations

which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This court is faced with

cases of this general type frequently. At this stage in the proceedings, the court cannot determine

that plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits and, after reviewing the record in this case, the

court does not find that plaintiff is unable to articulate his claims adequately. Id. 

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

HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 24, 2010 /s/ Susan P. Graber 

UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

Case 2:08-cv-02177-DAD Document 49 Filed 06/25/10 Page 2 of 2