Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01214/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01214-9/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

THOMAS K. MILLS,

Plaintiff,

v.

ZACHERY JONES, et al.

Defendants.

No. 1:23-cv-01214-JLT-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

 (ECF No. 28)

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action filed pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, filed 

December 14, 2023. 

he 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 any 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). 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 

Case 1:23-cv-01214-JLT-SAB Document 29 Filed 12/15/23 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

“exceptional circumstances exist, the 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. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 

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

if it 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. The Court is faced with 

similar cases almost daily. While the Court recognizes that Plaintiff is at a disadvantage due to 

his pro se status and his incarceration, the test is not whether Plaintiff would benefit from the 

appointment of counsel. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Most 

actions require development of further facts during litigation and a pro se litigant will seldom be 

in a position to investigate easily the facts necessary to support the case.”) Circumstances 

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

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

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

test is whether exception circumstances exist and here, they do not. In particular, the record in 

this case supports a finding that Plaintiff has adequately litigated this action to date. Indeed, he 

has filed several motions including, a motion to compel, request for default, and motion for 

summary judgment. Further, the fact that the Court has found that Plaintiff has stated a 

cognizable claim, at the pleading stage, does not demonstrate that he is likely to proceed on the 

merits of the claims. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied, 

without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 15, 2023 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-01214-JLT-SAB Document 29 Filed 12/15/23 Page 2 of 2