Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00500/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00500-0/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 Eugene A. Harris, Jr. is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On January 21, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for the appointment of counsel. There is no 

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 

“exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on the 

EUGENE A. HARRIS, JR.,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION,

et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-00500-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE

[ECF No. 13]

Case 1:16-cv-00500-SAB Document 14 Filed 04/28/16 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

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 find that neither the interests of justice nor exceptional 

circumstances warrant appointment of counsel at this time. LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th 

Cir. 1987); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). 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, and based on a review of the record in this case, the Court does not find that 

Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claim. 

While a pro se litigant may be better served with the assistance of counsel, so long as a pro se 

litigant, such as Plaintiff in this instance, is able to “articulate his claims against the relative 

complexity of the matter,” the “exceptional circumstances” which might require the appointment of 

counsel do not exist. Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d at 1525 (finding no abuse of discretion under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e) when district court denied appointment of counsel despite fact that pro se prisoner 

“may well have fared better-particularly in the realm of discovery and the securing of expert 

testimony.”) Accordingly, Plaintiff motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED, without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 27, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00500-SAB Document 14 Filed 04/28/16 Page 2 of 2