Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00671/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00671-1/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

ISIDRO ROMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

PATRICT EASTON, et al,

Defendants.

1:23-cv-00671-KES-SAB (PC) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND 

DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMONS TO 

SERVE DEFENDANTS

(ECF No. 20)

On May 17, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel and for 

summons to serve defendants in this matter. 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, 109 S.Ct. 

1814, 1816 (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 

Case 1:23-cv-00671-KES-SAB Document 21 Filed 05/20/24 Page 1 of 3
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

complexity of the legal issues involved. Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

The test for exception 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. Escadeleron, 789 F.2d 1328, 

1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). In the present case, 

the Court has screened Plaintiff’s second amended complaint and found that he has stated a claim 

for retaliation against Defendant K. Jackson, but has failed to state any other cognizable claims. 

(ECF No. 18.) The Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. 

Furthermore, 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. Plaintiff has adequately alleged a claim for retaliation in violation of the First 

Amendment and review of the complaints filed in this action reflects an ability to express the 

issue adequately. The legal issues present in this action are not complex. Circumstances 

common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not 

establish exception circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of 

counsel. 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 seeks for summons to issue for service upon defendants in this action. Plaintiff’s 

request for issuance of summonses is premature. Currently, pending before the district judge is a 

findings and recommendations recommending dismissal of certain claims and defendant in this 

matters. Once the district judge addresses the findings and recommendations an order will issue 

regarding the issuance of summonses. 

///

///

///

///

Case 1:23-cv-00671-KES-SAB Document 21 Filed 05/20/24 Page 2 of 3
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 3

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED, without prejudice; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for issuance of summonses is DENIED as premature.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 20, 2024 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-00671-KES-SAB Document 21 Filed 05/20/24 Page 3 of 3