Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01179/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01179-8/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

DANIEL MASTERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

S. KILLEN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:11-cv-01179-LJO-SAB-PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

[ECF NO. 61]

Plaintiff Masterson is a state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On September 14, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for the appointment of counsel. (ECF 

No. 61.) Plaintiff has not previously requested appointment of counsel.. 

Plaintiff is advised that 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 195(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 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 has considered Plaintiff’s moving papers, but does not find 

Case 1:11-cv-01179-SAB Document 62 Filed 09/16/15 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 required exceptional circumstances. LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987); 

Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff is proceeding on a claim of 

retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. The legal issues present in this action are not 

complex, and Plaintiff has thoroughly set forth his arguments in the November 22, 2013, third 

amended complaint filed in this action. Plaintiff contends that the issues are complex, that he has 

no formal legal education, and that his access to legal resources is limited. Plaintiff also refers to 

Defendants’ responses to his interrogatories. Regarding the rules and procedures for discovery, 

Plaintiff is referred to the November 14, 2014, discovery order (ECF No. 42.) In forma pauperis 

status alone does not alone entitle Plaintiff to appointed counsel. Plaintiff’s lack of a legal 

education and difficulty in conducting legal research do not constitute exceptional circumstances. 

While a pro se litigant may be setter 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, 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, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for the 

appointment of counsel is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 16, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01179-SAB Document 62 Filed 09/16/15 Page 2 of 2