Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00615/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00615-6/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

Plaintiff Rodney Jerome Womack is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, filed on June 22, 

2020.

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 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). Nevertheless, in certain exceptional circumstances, the 

court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to § 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 

1525. 

RODNEY JEROME WOMACK,

 Plaintiff,

v.

W. GIBBONS, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:19-cv-00615-AWI-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE

[ECF No. 35]

Case 1:19-cv-00615-KES-SAB Document 36 Filed 06/23/20 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

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 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). “Neither of these considerations is 

dispositive and instead must be viewed together.” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 

2009). The burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances is on Plaintiff. Id.

The Court has considered Plaintiff’s request for appointed counsel, but does not find the 

required exceptional circumstances. Initially, circumstances common to most prisoners, such as lack 

of legal education, limited law library access, and lack of funds to hire counsel, do not alone establish 

the exceptional circumstances that would warrant appointment of counsel. Specifically, Plaintiff’s 

apprehension with pursuing this case on his own and during the settlement conference, while 

understandable, is not sufficient grounds for appointing 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.”). In addition, although Plaintiff has alleged that this case is too complex for him to litigate, the 

Court finds that Plaintiff’s claims do not present novel or complex issues of substantive law and that 

Plaintiff has demonstrated that he is able to clearly articulate his claims and prosecute this action. 

Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel is denied, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 23, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00615-KES-SAB Document 36 Filed 06/23/20 Page 2 of 2