Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00447/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00447-7/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

JOHN REYNA,

 Plaintiffs,

 vs.

KINGS COUNTY JAIL, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:20-cv-00447-AWI-GSA-PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(ECF No. 25.)

On September 28, 2022, 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 (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 

Case 1:20-cv-00447-KES-GSA Document 26 Filed 10/11/22 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

“exceptional 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).

In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. 

Plaintiff requests appointment of counsel because he is unable to afford counsel, the issues in his 

case involve legal complexities, and he has limited knowledge of the law. Plaintiff’s case stems 

from allegations that Defendants retaliated against him in violation of the First Amendment, and 

this claim is not legally complex. At this early stage of the proceedings, the court cannot make 

a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. Moreover, a review of the Court’s 

record, shows that Plaintiff is able to adequately articulate his claims. 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 does not appear exceptional. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion 

shall be denied, without prejudice to renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel 

is HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 11, 2022 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00447-KES-GSA Document 26 Filed 10/11/22 Page 2 of 2