Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01485/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01485-2/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

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAYLA SUGGETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

SOLANO COUNTY JUSTICE CENTER,

et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:23-cv-01485-JDP (PC)

ORDER

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

APPOINT COUNSEL

ECF No. 12

Plaintiff is a pretrial detainee proceeding without counsel in this civil rights action brought 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending is plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel. ECF No. 12. 

Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel, see Rand v. Rowland, 

113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court lacks authority to require an attorney to 

represent plaintiff. See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 

(1989). The court can request the voluntary assistance of counsel. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) 

(“The court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel”); Rand, 

113 F.3d at 1525. But without a means to compensate counsel, the court will seek volunteer 

counsel only in exceptional circumstances. In determining whether such circumstances exist, 

“the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on the merits [and] the ability of 

Case 2:23-cv-01485-JDP Document 13 Filed 05/20/24 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

the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues 

involved.” Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

I cannot find that the appointment of counsel is warranted here. The allegations in the 

complaint are not exceptionally complicated, and plaintiff has not demonstrated that she is likely 

to succeed on the merits. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel, ECF No.

12, is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 20, 2024 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-01485-JDP Document 13 Filed 05/20/24 Page 2 of 2