Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01187/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01187-5/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

KEVIN ALLEN,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

V. BENTACOURT, et al.,

 

Defendants.

1:18-cv-01187-NONE-GSA-PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(ECF No. 29.)

On May 11, 2020, 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 

“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).

Case 1:18-cv-01187-JLT-GSA Document 31 Filed 06/01/20 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

Plaintiff asserts that he has a learning disability, dyslexia, and a low reading score of 0.7. 

While these circumstances make litigation challenging, they do not make Plaintiff’s case 

exceptional under the law. At this early stage of the proceedings, the court cannot make a 

determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. Plaintiff’s First Amended 

Complaint was dismissed on December 11, 2019, for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend

and to date, Plaintiff has not filed a Second Amended Complaint. Thus, there is no complaint on 

record in this case for which the court has found a cognizable claim. Moreover, based on the 

record in this case, it appears that Plaintiff is able to adequately articulate his claims. 

Furthermore, Plaintiff’s conditions of confinement claim, alleging that his toilet overflowed onto 

the floor of his cell, is not complex. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel 

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: June 1, 2020 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-01187-JLT-GSA Document 31 Filed 06/01/20 Page 2 of 2