Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00535/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00535-15/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

LAMONT SHEPARD,

Plaintiff,

v.

COHEN, et al.,

Defendants.

1:11-cv-00535-LJO-GSA (PC) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

(Document #74)

On March 25, 2015, 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). 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 

Aexceptional 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 1:11-cv-00535-DAD-EPG Document 76 Filed 03/27/15 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

In the present case, Plaintiff argues that his imprisonment, his detention in administrative 

segregation, and his lack of assistance by other inmates will make it difficult to litigate this case. 

This does not make Plaintiff’s case exceptional. This court is faced with similar cases daily. 

Plaintiff’s case proceeds on his allegations that defendants involuntarily medicated him, using 

excessive force, without any penological justification. While the court has found that Plaintiff 

states cognizable claims for due process violations and excessive force, this finding is not a 

determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits and at this juncture, the court cannot 

find that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. While Plaintiff’s claims may be challenging, 

a review of the record in this case shows that Plaintiff is responsive, adequately communicates, 

and is able to articulate his claims. The case is presently in the discovery phase and one of the 

five defendants has not been served. Therefore, Plaintiff=s motion shall be denied without 

prejudice to renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff=s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY 

DENIED, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 27, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00535-DAD-EPG Document 76 Filed 03/27/15 Page 2 of 2