Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00263/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00263-3/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

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 motion for appointment of counsel, filed September 

20, 2016. 

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). 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 

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 MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT 

OF COUNSEL

[ECF No. 15]

Case 1:16-cv-00263-AWI-SAB Document 17 Filed 09/22/16 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

“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 health condition has made it impossible for him to litigate this action and he is required 

to rely on inmate assistance to file documents. Neither the interests of justice nor exceptional 

circumstances warrant appointment of counsel at this 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. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied, without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 21, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00263-AWI-SAB Document 17 Filed 09/22/16 Page 2 of 2