Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00590/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00590-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Audrey King
Defendant
Gregory Ell Shehee
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

GREGORY ELL SHEHEE,

Plaintiff,

v.

AUDREY KING,

Defendant.

1:14-cv-00590-AWI-GSA (PC) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

(Document# 18)

On January 26, 2015, 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 

complexity of the legal issues involved.@ Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

Case 1:14-cv-00590-AWI-GSA Document 19 Filed 01/30/15 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

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

Plaintiff argues that counsel should be appointed because he suffers from impaired vision. This

alone does not make Plaintiff’s case exceptional under the Ninth Circuit’s standards discussed 

above.

At this early stage in the proceedings, the court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff 

is likely to succeed on the merits. Plaintiff=s Complaint was dismissed on October 17, 2014, for 

failure to state a claim, with leave to amend. To date, Plaintiff has not filed an amended 

complaint. Thus, there is no complaint on record in this case for which the court has found 

cognizable claims. Moreover, based on the court’s record, the court does not find that Plaintiff 

cannot adequately articulate his claims or respond to the court=s orders. Plaintiff is advised that 

he is not precluded from renewing the motion for appointment of counsel at a later stage of the 

proceedings. 

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

DENIED, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 29, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00590-AWI-GSA Document 19 Filed 01/30/15 Page 2 of 2