Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01092/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01092-8/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 Mark Schmidt is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On August 17, 2015, Plaintiff filed a fourth motion for the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff 

previously filed three motions for the appointment of counsel, which were denied. (ECF Nos. 6, 7, 18, 

20, 29, 30.) 

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.

MARK SCHMIDT,

 Plaintiff,

v.

RODRIGUES, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01092-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S FOURTH 

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

[ECF No. 36]

Case 1:14-cv-01092-DAD-SAB Document 38 Filed 08/18/15 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 not find the required exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff’s 

claim that he has limited knowledge of the law and education, do not present exceptional 

circumstances to warrant appointment of counsel. Even if it 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 action is proceeding against Defendants Villanueba, Nye, Haws, and 

DeCou for endangering Plaintiff’s safety in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Defendants filed an 

answer to the complaint on July 16, 2015. At this early stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot 

make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits, and 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 fourth motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY 

DENIED, without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 18, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01092-DAD-SAB Document 38 Filed 08/18/15 Page 2 of 2