Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01401/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01401-19/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

ISAIAH J. PETILLO,

Plaintiff,

v.

REYNALDO JASSO, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:21-cv-01401-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND 

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 

COUNSEL

(ECF No. 69)

Plaintiff Isaiah J. Petillo is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

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

August 8, 2023. (ECF No. 69.) 

As Plaintiff is 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 

Case 1:21-cv-01401-SAB Document 70 Filed 08/09/23 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

2

“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). 

Here, Plaintiff seeks appointment of counsel to enable him to contact witnesses in 

preparation for trial. 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. The record demonstrates that Plaintiff is able to articulate his claims and litigate this 

action, having filed a motion for summary judgment as well as an opposition to Defendants’ motion 

for summary judgment. In addition, the fact that Plaintiff has to prepare for jury trial does not 

demonstrate extraordinary circumstances as he faces the same obstacles as all other pro se prisoners

who proceed to jury trial. Accordingly, the Court finds appointment of counsel is not warranted 

and Plaintiff’s second motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 9, 2023 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-01401-SAB Document 70 Filed 08/09/23 Page 2 of 2