Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00263/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00263-5/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 Richard B. Hall 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 second motion for appointment of counsel, filed 

November 1, 2016. Although Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on November 1, 2016, such appeal does 

not divest this Court of jurisdiction because judgment has not been entered and no appealable order 

has been issued. See Estate v. Conners by Meredith v. O’Connor, 6 F.3d 656, 658 (9th Cir. 1993) 

(notice of appeal from a nonappealable order does not divest the district court of jurisdiction); see also

Nascimento v. Dummer, 508 F.3d 905 (9th Cir. 2007) (“When a Notice of Appeal is defective in that 

it refers to a non-appealable interlocutory order, it does not transfer jurisdiction to the appellate court, 

and so the ordinary rule that the district court cannot act until the mandate has issued on the appeal 

does not apply.”) 

As Plaintiff was previously advised, 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 

RICHARD B. HALL,

 Plaintiff,

v.

SCOTT FRAUENHEIM, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-00263-AWI-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 

PLAINTIFF’S SECOND MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

[ECF No. 20] 

Case 1:16-cv-00263-AWI-SAB Document 24 Filed 11/04/16 Page 1 of 3
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

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 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. Plaintiff 

contends that his classification as a participant in the Developmental Disability Program has rendered 

him unable to effectively prosecute this action. While Plaintiff has alleged difficulty in his potential 

ability to articulate his claims pro se due to his disability, the Court does not find that the exceptional 

factors necessary to justify appointment of counsel exist in this case, at the present time. 

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 addition, Plaintiff’s current motion demonstrates that Plaintiff (and/or his 

current inmate assistant) understands the process and how to file documents. Furthermore, the Court 

cannot evaluate the likelihood of success of the merits as Plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed, with 

leave to amend, for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. The record in this case demonstrates 

sufficient writing ability and legal knowledge to articulate the claims asserted, even if such filings are 

done with the assistance of other inmates. In addition, the exhibits attached to Plaintiff’s demonstrate 

that Plaintiff has assistance under the Developmental Disability Program to help with access to the law 

library access and materials necessary for court filings. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s second motion for 

appointment of counsel is denied, without prejudice. To that end, Plaintiff is advised that after 

receiving multiple extensions of time, Plaintiff’s amended complaint is presently due on or before 

November 10, 2016 (thirty days from October 11, 2016), and the failure to file an amended complaint 

///

///

///

Case 1:16-cv-00263-AWI-SAB Document 24 Filed 11/04/16 Page 2 of 3
3

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

will result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed for to prosecute and failure to state a 

cognizable claim for relief. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 3, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00263-AWI-SAB Document 24 Filed 11/04/16 Page 3 of 3