Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00001/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00001-0/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-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN HAIRL WILHELM,

Plaintiff,

vs.

DR. ARON ROTMAN, et al.,

Defendants. 

________________________________/

1:10-cv-00001-GSA (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

(Document #3)

On December 31, 2009, 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, 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 “exceptional 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 1:10-cv-00001-DLB Document 6 Filed 01/07/10 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-

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. 

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

HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 7, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

220hhe UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00001-DLB Document 6 Filed 01/07/10 Page 2 of 2