Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01596/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01596-2/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 Jesse Adame is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

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

July 30, 2015. 

As Plaintiff was previously advised, 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 

JESSE ADAME,

 Plaintiff,

v.

F. MARISCAL, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01596-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND 

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

[ECF No. 23]

Case 1:14-cv-01596-SAB Document 24 Filed 08/03/15 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

“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. 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. Plaintiff alleges an Eighth Amendment 

claim for excessive force against Defendants Mariscal and Vallejo. The legal issues present in this 

action are not complex, and Plaintiff has thoroughly set forth his allegations in the complaint. 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 second motion for the appointment of counsel is 

HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 3, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

Case 1:14-cv-01596-SAB Document 24 Filed 08/03/15 Page 2 of 2