Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01147/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01147-3/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

SCOTT K. RICKS,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. AUSTRIA,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01147-BAM-PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S THIRD

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 

COUNSEL

(ECF NO. 25)

Plaintiff Scott K. Ricks is a state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this 

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On April 27, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 25.) 

Plaintiff’s previous requests for counsel were denied on July 31, 2015, (ECF No. 7) and January 

8, 2016. (ECF No. 18.) In his first motion for the appointment of counsel, Plaintiff indicated 

that he was suffering from a mental disability. In his second motion for the appointment of 

counsel, Plaintiff re-stated his claim that he suffered from a mental disability, and also argued 

that if this case proceeds to trial, there will likely be conflicting testimony, and counsel would 

better enable Plaintiff to present evidence. In the motion for the appointment of counsel 

currently before the Court, Plaintiff recounts his efforts at obtaining counsel, and re-states his 

argument that he could benefit from the appointment of counsel should this case proceed to trial.

Because Plaintiff restates the arguments he previously made, the motion for the 

appointment of counsel should be denied on the same ground. Further, Plaintiff is advised that 

once Defendant has filed an answer, a schedule for litigation will be set, including the deadline 

for the filing of dispositive motions. Until such time as this case proceeds beyond the resolution 

of any dispositive motions, no trial date will be set. Plaintiff is advised that should this case 

Case 1:15-cv-01147-AWI-BAM Document 26 Filed 05/02/16 Page 1 of 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

2

proceed to trial, he is not entitled to the automatic appointment of counsel. Should a trial date be 

set in this action, a further schedule for litigation will be set, including the filing of pretrial 

motions. That the Court denies Plaintiff’s request at this state of litigation does not preclude him 

from renewing his request once a trial date has been set.

Plaintiff is advised that there is no 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 

“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 has considered Plaintiff’s moving papers, but does not find 

the required exceptional circumstances. LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987); 

Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff is proceeding on a claim of 

deliberate indifference to his medical needs, relating to his hernia surgery. The legal issues 

present in this action are not complex, and Plaintiff has thoroughly set forth his arguments in the 

July 24, 2015, complaint filed in this action. In forma pauperis status alone does not alone entitle 

Plaintiff to appointed counsel. For the reasons set forth in the earlier orders denying Plaintiff’s 

motions for the appointment of counsel, the Court finds that exceptional circumstances do not 

exist. 

While a pro se litigant may be setter served with the assistance of counsel, so long as a 

pro se litigant, such as Plaintiff in this instance, is able to “articulate his claims against the 

relative complexity of the matter,” the “exceptional circumstances” which might require the 

appointment of counsel do not exist. Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (finding no abuse of discretion 

Case 1:15-cv-01147-AWI-BAM Document 26 Filed 05/02/16 Page 2 of 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

3

under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e) when district court denied appointment of counsel despite fact that pro 

se prisoner “may well have fared better – particularly in the realm of discovery and the securing 

of expert testimony.”) Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for the 

appointment of counsel is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 2, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01147-AWI-BAM Document 26 Filed 05/02/16 Page 3 of 3