Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01531/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01531-2/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-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARIO TIMOTHY ORTEGA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CORCORAN STATE PRISON, et al.,

Defendants. 

________________________________/

1:09-cv-01531-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

(ECF No. 22)

On July 14, 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. 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 1:09-cv-01531-MJS Document 23 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, there is no reason for the Court to believe that Plaintiff cannot adequately

articulate his claims. Id.

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel [ECF No. 22]

is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

ci4d6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-01531-MJS Document 23 Filed 07/19/10 Page 2 of 2