Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00418/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00418-2/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY BONSALL,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. KONGARA,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:19-cv-00418-EPG (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR APPOINTMENT OF PRO BONO 

COUNSEL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(ECF NO. 18)

Anthony Bonsall (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On May 22, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of pro bono counsel. (ECF No. 

18). Plaintiff asks for appointment of counsel because he is unable to afford counsel; because his 

imprisonment will greatly limit his ability to litigate this case; because the issues in this case are 

complex; because Plaintiff has never before been a party to a civil legal proceeding; because a 

trial in this case will likely involve conflicting testimony; and because Plaintiff has made repeated 

efforts to obtain a lawyer, but has been unable to find a lawyer willing to take his case.

Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. 

Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 

(9th Cir. 1998), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 

Case 1:19-cv-00418-DAD-EPG Document 19 Filed 05/27/20 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

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 

“exceptional circumstances exist, a 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. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

The Court will not order appointment of pro bono counsel at this time. The Court has 

reviewed the record in this case, and at this time the Court is unable to make a determination that 

Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim. Moreover, it appears that Plaintiff can 

adequately articulate his claim. 

Plaintiff is advised that he is not precluded from renewing his motion for appointment of 

pro bono counsel at a later stage of the proceedings. 

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of pro 

bono counsel is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 27, 2020 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00418-DAD-EPG Document 19 Filed 05/27/20 Page 2 of 2