Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00312/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00312-20/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 Hussein Ali Kietty is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties have consented to the 

jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge. Local Rule 302.

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

October 24, 2016. Plaintiff requests appointment of counsel because he is indigent, has limited access 

to the law library, and trial in this action will likely involve conflicting testimony. 

On November 29, 2016, the Court held a hearing for purposes of setting the trial dates in this 

matter. At the hearing, Plaintiff notified the Court that he has retained counsel, but counsel has yet to 

make an appearance on the record. Thus, based on Plaintiff’s representation that he has counsel, his 

present for appointment of counsel is moot. Plaintiff was advised by the Court that counsel has yet to 

make an appearance in the case and until such counsel does he still is in pro persona. For that reasons, 

the Court will analyze Plaintiff’s request as if he had no counsel. For the reasons explained below, the 

Court does not find exceptional circumstances for appointment of counsel in this case. 

///

///

HUSSEIN ALI KIETTY,

 Plaintiff,

v.

A. WALKER, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-00312-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S FOURTH 

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

[ECF No. 78]

Case 1:13-cv-00312-SAB Document 86 Filed 11/30/16 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

///

///

As Plaintiff is well aware, 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 “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). 

The test for exceptional circumstances requires the Court to evaluate the Plaintiff’s 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. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 

1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). 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. Furthermore, the fact 

that Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis does not entitle him to counsel. While a prose litigant 

may be better 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 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 security of expert testimony.”) In sum, the Court finds Plaintiff’s 

///

///

Case 1:13-cv-00312-SAB Document 86 Filed 11/30/16 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

reasons for requesting appointment of counsel indistinguishable from the reasons asserted by most 

prisoners. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s fourth motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED, for the 

reasons explained herein. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 30, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00312-SAB Document 86 Filed 11/30/16 Page 3 of 3