Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01606/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01606-2/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

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 William L. Snow is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, filed December 

2, 2016. 

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 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.

///

///

WILLIAM L. SNOW,

 Plaintiff,

v.

DOCTOR SHWE,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01606-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT 

OF COUNSEL

[ECF No. 25]

Case 1:15-cv-01606-DAD-SAB Document 27 Filed 12/05/16 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

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). 

The test for exceptional circumstances requires the Court to evaluate the Plaintiff’s 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. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 

1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Circumstances common to most 

prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not establish exceptional 

circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. In the present case, 

the Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims or respond to the Court’s 

orders. Although Plaintiff submits that he is legally blind, Plaintiff’s eyesight appears sufficient 

enough to prepare and file legal documents in this case. Plaintiff is advised that he is not precluded 

from renewing the motion for appointment of counsel at a later stage of the proceedings, if 

appropriate. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel will be DENIED without 

prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 5, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

Case 1:15-cv-01606-DAD-SAB Document 27 Filed 12/05/16 Page 2 of 2