Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01472/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01472-16/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

CORNELL BROWN,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. HARRIS, et al.,

Defendants.

1:12-cv-01472-LJO-GSA (PC) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

(Document# 63)

On February 9, 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, 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 

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

Case 1:12-cv-01472-BAM Document 65 Filed 02/13/15 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, plaintiff argues that he is unable to afford counsel and his 

imprisonment will greatly limit his ability to litigate. This does not make plaintiff’s case 

exceptional. This court is faced with similar cases daily. While the court has found that “Plaintiff 

states a colorable claim for relief against Defendant Harris for excessive force in violation of the 

Eighth Amendment, and against Defendant Nelson for failure to protect Plaintiff in violation of 

the Eighth Amendment,” this finding is not a determination that plaintiff is likely to succeed on 

the merits and at this juncture, the court cannot find that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the 

merits. Plaintiff’s claims do not appear complex, and based on a review of the record in this case, 

the court does not find that plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Thus, the court does 

not find the required exceptional circumstances, and plaintiff’s motion shall be denied without 

prejudice to renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.

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

DENIED, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 13, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01472-BAM Document 65 Filed 02/13/15 Page 2 of 2