Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00501/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00501-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

RICHARD CHARLES HANNA,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARIPOSA COUNTY SHERIFF DEPT.,

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:12-cv-00501-AWI-SAB

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(ECF No. 24)

Plaintiff Richard Charles Hanna is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action as filed on April 2, 2012, and an order issued

finding service of the complaint appropriate on June 25, 2012. Plaintiff filed a motion for

appointment of counsel that was denied on December 18, 2012. On January 8, 2013, an orderissued

directing the United States Marshal to serve the summons and complaint. Currently before the court

is Plaintiff’s second motion for appointment of counsel, filed February 25, 2013. 

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 an 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, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (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

1

Case 1:12-cv-00501-SAB Document 25 Filed 03/05/13 Page 1 of 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

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 of

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. Even if

it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations

which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This court is faced with

similar cases almost daily. Further, at this early stage in the proceedings, the court cannot make a

determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits, and, although Plaintiff claims that he

has a long term mental illness, the court has conducted a review of the record and does not find that

plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id. 

Plaintiff also seeks information on the status of this action. Plaintiff is directed to the

informational order issued June 25, 2012. This action is currently pending service of the complaint. 

Once the defendants are served and an answer is filed an order will issue opening discovery in this

action. 

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY

DENIED, without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 5, 2013 

i1eed4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:12-cv-00501-SAB Document 25 Filed 03/05/13 Page 2 of 2