Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00538/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00538-16/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 Tracy Taylor is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On March 16, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 79.) 

Plaintiff has previously requested counsel on three separate occasions, all of which were denied. (ECF 

Nos. 25, 26, 40, 41, 43, 45.) 

As Plaintiff has previously been advised, 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.

///

TRACY TAYLOR,

 Plaintiff,

v.

SHAYE O’HANNESON, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:11-cv-00538-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

FOURTH MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT 

OF COUNSEL

[ECF No. 79]

Case 1:11-cv-00538-SAB Document 82 Filed 03/17/15 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

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 excessive force and 

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

arguments in his various filings in this action. Plaintiff’s claim that he is unable to afford legal and 

counsel and he has been granted in forma pauper status, does not alone entitled him to appointment 

counsel. In addition, Plaintiff’s claim of limited of access to law library does not warrant exceptional 

circumstances. 

While a pro se litigant may be better serve d 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 v. Rowland, 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 securing of expert 

testimony.”) Accordingly, Plaintiff motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 17, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00538-SAB Document 82 Filed 03/17/15 Page 2 of 2