Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01248/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01248-26/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 Horace Thomas is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. 

On August 5, 2015, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the notice of the taking of his deposition 

and motion for appointment of counsel. Plaintiff previously filed two separate motions requesting 

appointment of counsel, which were denied. (ECF Nos. 18, 19, 25, 26.) 

In the present motion for appointment of counsel, Plaintiff opposes the taking of his deposition 

by defense counsel and requests the appointment of counsel to represent his interests at the deposition.

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.

HORACE THOMAS, a.k.a Horace Bell,

 Plaintiff,

v.

S HEBERLING, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-01248-AWI-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S THIRD 

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

[ECF No. 117]

Case 1:12-cv-01248-AWI-SAB Document 118 Filed 08/07/15 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 does find that neither the interests of justice nor exceptional 

circumstances warrant appointment of counsel at this time. LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th 

Cir. 1987); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). On January 9, 2015, the Court

issued a discovery and scheduling order. Pursuant to that order, Defendants are allowed to depose 

Plaintiff provided he gives Plaintiff at least fourteen days notice in accordance with Rule 30(b)(1) of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 53.) 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. While a pro se 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 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.”) 

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel must be DENIED, 

without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 7, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01248-AWI-SAB Document 118 Filed 08/07/15 Page 2 of 2