Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01885/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01885-1/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RASHAD KING,

Plaintiff,

 v.

S. HOLLAND, et al,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:15-cv-01885-BAM (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(ECF No. 10)

Plaintiff Rashad King (“Plaintiff”), is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361. Currently before the Court is 

Plaintiff’s motion seeking the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 10.) 

In Plaintiff’s motion, he asserts that he is an indigent state prisoner with limited access to 

legal materials and no meaningful attorney access, other than some limited access to jailhouse 

lawyers. He also is a layman at the law, with a limited education. As a result, he requests the 

assistance of appointed counsel.

As Plaintiff admits in his motion, he does not have a constitutional right to appointed 

counsel in this civil 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 

Case 1:15-cv-01885-DAD-BAM Document 11 Filed 07/12/16 Page 1 of 2
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

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).

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, including those involving allegations of excessive force, 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’s complaint 

will be screened in due course.

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 

10) is HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 12, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01885-DAD-BAM Document 11 Filed 07/12/16 Page 2 of 2