Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00750/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00750-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH PUCKETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

JERRY DYER, ET AL.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:22-cv-750-ADA-HBK 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Doc. No. 24)

MAY 26, 2023 DEADLINE

Pending before the Court is pro se Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel filed on 

September 1, 2023. (Doc. No. 24). Plaintiff seeks appointment of counsel on the basis that he 

has been deemed indigent and granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis in this action. 

(Id.). 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, this court has discretionary authority to appoint counsel for an 

indigent person to commence, prosecute, or defend a civil action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) 

(stating the court has authority to appoint counsel for people unable to afford counsel). Contrary 

to Plaintiff’s assertion, Plaintiff paid the filing fee and was not granted permission to proceed in 

forma pauperis. (See August 4, 2022 Order finding Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis moot due to Plaintiff paying the filing fee; see also receipt number CAE100050978 in 

the amount of $402.00 on or about July 26, 2022). Thus, there has been no finding that Plaintiff 

Case 1:22-cv-00750-KES-HBK Document 25 Filed 09/22/23 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

is indigent, and thus Plaintiff is not entitled to appointment of counsel. 

Even if indigent, Plaintiff’s indigence alone does not entitle him to appointment of 

counsel. See Montano v. Solomon, 2010 WL 2403389, at *2 (E.D. Cal. June 11, 2010); Callender 

v. Ramm, 2018 WL 6448536, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2018). The United States Constitution 

does not require appointment of counsel in civil cases. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354 

(1996) (explaining Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1996), did not create a right to appointment of 

counsel in civil cases). Instead, counsel is appointed in civil cases only in “exceptional 

circumstances.” United States v. McQuade, 519 F.2d 1180 (9th Cir. 1978) (addressing relevant 

standard of review for motions to appoint counsel in civil cases) (other citations omitted). Other 

than claiming he is indigent; Plaintiff fails to provide any basis to warrant the Court exercising it 

discretionary authority to appoint counsel. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 24) is DENIED. 

Dated: September 22, 2023 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-00750-KES-HBK Document 25 Filed 09/22/23 Page 2 of 2