Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01020/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01020-5/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

TOMMIE LEE BAKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. ALVA, et al.,

Defendant.

1:14-cv-01020-AWI-MJS (PC) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

(Document# 22)

On February 02, 2015, 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). 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. However, 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 1:14-cv-01020-AWI-MJS Document 25 Filed 02/05/15 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 does not find the required exceptional 

circumstances. Even if it is assumed that plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he 

has made serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not 

exceptional. This court is faced with similar cases almost daily. Further, at this early 

stage in the proceedings, the court cannot make a determination that plaintiff is likely to 

succeed on the merits, and based on a review of the record in this case, the court does 

not find that plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id.

Plaintiff notes that he seeks counsel because Defendants have not responded to 

his informal discovery requests within fifteen days. Defendants’ responses are not due 

within fifteen days, and the failure to respond to Plaintiff’s requests within that time does 

not warrant the appointment of counsel. As noted in the Court’s discovery and 

scheduling order (ECF No. 21), Defendants have forty-five days after a written discovery 

request is served to serve responses. If Defendants fail to respond to the request within 

that amount of time, or if they do but their response is inadequate, Plaintiff may seek 

relief by filing a motion to compel. 

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

HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 5, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01020-AWI-MJS Document 25 Filed 02/05/15 Page 2 of 2