Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01148/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01148-0/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

JAMES CARL KELLY,

Plaintiff,

v.

WARDEN OF KERN VALLEY STATE 

PRISON, et al.,

Defendant.

1:24-cv-01148-GSA (PC) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

(Document# 3)

On September 26, 2024, 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, 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 

Aexceptional 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 

Case 1:24-cv-01148-KES-GSA Document 5 Filed 09/30/24 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

complexity of the legal issues involved.

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

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 is not exceptional. Further, at 

this early stage in the proceedings, the court cannot make a determination that plaintiff is likely to 

succeed on the merits, and based on a review of the record in this case, the court does not find 

that plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. 

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY 

DENIED, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 28, 2024 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-01148-KES-GSA Document 5 Filed 09/30/24 Page 2 of 2