Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00099/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00099-1/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-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEROY DEWITT HUNTER,

Plaintiff,

vs.

DIRECTOR OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants. 

________________________________/

1:10-cv-00099-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

(ECF No. 10)

On July 12, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. 

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). 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. However, 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 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).

Case 1:10-cv-00099-GSA Document 11 Filed 07/19/10 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-

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. Finally, based on a review of the

record in this case, the Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id.

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel [ECF No. 10]

is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 16, 2010 /s/Michael J. Seng 

ci4d6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00099-GSA Document 11 Filed 07/19/10 Page 2 of 2