Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00421/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00421-14/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

G.J. GUTIERREZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. GUTIERREZ,

Defendant.

1:13-cv-00421 LJO-GSA (PC) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(ECF No. 59.)

On July 16, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. 

Plaintiff is reminded that he 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, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (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 1:13-cv-00421-SAB Document 64 Filed 07/23/15 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

On July 14, 2015, two days ago, the court issued an order denying plaintiff’s prior motion 

for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 58.) In the present motion, Plaintiff again argues that he is 

a layperson, unskilled at law, and requires representation by counsel to adequately litigate this 

matter. Plaintiff also asserts that his case is complex and he has extreme difficulty focusing and 

concentrating. This does not make Plaintiff’s case exceptional. At this juncture, the court is 

unable to find that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. This case is in the discovery phase, 

and a review of the record shows that Plaintiff is able to adequately articulate his claims and 

participate in litigation. Plaintiff’s claims -- that defendants failed to protect him and failed to 

administer adequate medical care – are not complex, and the court is faced with similar cases 

daily. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion shall be denied, without prejudice to renewal of the motion 

at a later stage of the proceedings.

Therefore, based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, filed on 

July 16, 2015, is denied, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 23, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00421-SAB Document 64 Filed 07/23/15 Page 2 of 2