Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00562/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00562-12/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

KEVIN HAGAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

RAUL RECAREY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:22-cv-00562-JLT-EPG (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S RENEWED

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF PRO 

BONO COUNSEL

(ECF No. 70)

Plaintiff Kevin Hagan is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s renewed motion for the appointment 

of pro bono counsel. (ECF No. 70). 

The Court denied a similar motion by Plaintiff approximately one month ago on 

November 21, 2024. (See ECF Nos. 68, 69). Plaintiff’s current motion does not set for any 

changed circumstances or reasons to reconsider that order. As the Court previously informed 

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Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 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

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. 

Case 1:22-cv-00562-JLT-EPG Document 71 Filed 01/02/25 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

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 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. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

Plaintiff’s current motion argues that he is entitled to counsel, but his cited authority1

applies to habeas corpus proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) (providing circumstances under 

which an application for writ of habeas corpus may be granted for an individual in custody 

pursuant to State court judgment and regarding claims adjudicated on the merits in State court 

proceedings); People v. Duvall, 9 Cal.4th 464, 474 (1995)2(observing that on a petition for 

habeas corpus, petitioner should include copies of “reasonably available documentary evidence” 

to state facts on which relief is sought) (citations omitted); In re Bower, 38 Cal.3d 865, 872

(1985) (discussing petitioner’s burden of stating a prima facie case on petition for habeas corpus).

However, once again, there is no right to counsel in this case brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. See Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (“There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a § 

1983 action.”) (citation omitted).

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s renewed motion for appointment of counsel will be denied. 

For these reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of pro bono 

counsel (ECF No. 70) is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 31, 2024 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1 Plaintiff cites to King v. Ryan at “638 F.3d 1235 (9th Cir. 2011),” but this citation does not exist. Plaintiff 

may have been referring to Kemp v. Ryan, 638 F.3d 1245 (9th Cir. 2011), however, that case concerns 

habeas corpus proceedings, and in particular relevance here, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel in 

criminal proceedings.

2 Plaintiff’s motion does not provide the full citation to People v. Duvall, but the Court assumes that 

Plaintiff is referring to the 1995 California Supreme Court case.

Case 1:22-cv-00562-JLT-EPG Document 71 Filed 01/02/25 Page 2 of 2