Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01874/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01874-26/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

BILAL AHDOM,

Plaintiff,

 v.

S. LOPEZ, et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:09-cv-01874-AWI-BAM (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO APPOINT COUNSEL 

(ECF No. 158)

Plaintiff Bilal Ahdom (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action now proceeds on 

Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Schaefer, Araich, Chen, Shittu, and Ashby for Eighth 

Amendment deliberate indifference. On October 30, 2015, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for 

appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 158.)

As Plaintiff previously has been informed, 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. 

Case 1:09-cv-01874-AWI-BAM Document 162 Filed 11/30/15 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

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 

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. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

Here, as before, Plaintiff contends that he is incapable of functioning at a normal 

cognitive level because he takes a high-dose of Morphine twice daily to manage the chronic pain 

of his spinal injury, and he has limited use of his right upper extremity due to stroke. (ECF No. 

158, p. 2.) He references prior documentation he provided the Court and states his condition has 

not changed. (Id.) Furthermore, he contends that he can neither effectively manage his own 

discovery nor appropriately respond to Defendants’ discovery because of his physical and 

cognitive limitations and minimal understanding of the law. (Id. at 3). 

The Court has considered Plaintiff’s moving papers and supporting documents. Despite 

Plaintiff’s alleged limitations, the pleadings and motions on file at this juncture indicate that he

can adequately articulate his claims with the assistance of other prisoners, including his current 

prisoner-paralegal assistant. (ECF No. 132, p. 2; ECF No. 134, p. 5; ECF No. 158, pp. 4-5.) 

Further, at this stage of the proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is 

likely to succeed on the merits. Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. Plaintiff notes that this Court has found 

he stated cognizable claims against the Defendants, (ECF No. 158, p. 5), but the fact that he has 

passed this low bar has not yet shown the Court that he is likely to succeed on the merits. 

For the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY 

DENIED without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 30, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-01874-AWI-BAM Document 162 Filed 11/30/15 Page 2 of 2