Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01462/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01462-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
George Hamilton
Plaintiff
Unknown
Defendant

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

GEORGE HAMILTON, 

 Plaintiff,

 v.

UNKNOWN, 

 Defendant. 

Case No. 1:13-cv-01462-AWI-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(ECF No. 32)

This action was opened in the United States District Court for the Northern District of 

California on July 18, 2013 based upon a letter from Plaintiff, an inmate at Kern Valley 

State Prison (“KVSP”), to the Honorable Thelton E. Henderson alleging that prison staff 

participated in a "pattern of racketeering activity," which has led to an "extremely dangerous 

and stressful prison environment." On September 10, 2013, the case was transferred to this 

Court.

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion seeking appointment of counsel on 

grounds prison staff has deprived him of unspecified legal materials, law library access and 

a typewriter, and a hand injury causes pain when writing. 

Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand 

Case 1:13-cv-01462-AWI-MJS Document 34 Filed 12/02/13 Page 1 of 3
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

v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), partially overruled on other grounds, 154 

F.3d 952, 954 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998), 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 (1989). 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. However, 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 or her claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues 

involved.” Id. Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together 

before reaching a decision on request of counsel under section 1915(d). Wilborn v. 

Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th 

Cir. 2009).

The burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances is on the Plaintiff. See

Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970 (plaintiff “has not made the requisite showing of exceptional 

circumstances for the appointment of counsel”); accord, Alvarez v. Jacquez, 415 F. App'x 

830, 831 (9th Cir. 2011) (plaintiff “failed to show exceptional circumstances”); Simmons v. 

Hambly, 14 F. App'x 918, 919 (9th Cir. 2001) (same); Davis v. Yarborough, 459 F. App'x 

601, 602 (9th Cir. 2011) (plaintiff “did not show the ‘exceptional circumstances' required to 

appoint counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).”).

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

The Court cannot make a determination at this early stage of the litigation that Plaintiff is 

likely to succeed on the merits. The claims alleged do not appear to be novel or unduly 

complex. The facts alleged to date appear straightforward and unlikely to involve any 

extensive investigation and discovery.

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. 

Case 1:13-cv-01462-AWI-MJS Document 34 Filed 12/02/13 Page 2 of 3
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

3

This Court is faced with similar cases almost daily. 

The papers filed by Plaintiff in this case reflect an appreciation of the legal issues 

and standards and an ability to express same adequately in writing. The Court does not 

find that at present he cannot adequately articulate his claims pro se.

Finally, it is not clear Plaintiff has exhausted diligent efforts to secure counsel.1

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 

32) is HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 1, 2013 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC _Signature- END:

12eob4

 

1

 See e.g., Thornton v. Schwarzenegger, 2011 WL 90320, at *3–4 (S.D. Cal. 2011) (cases cited).

Case 1:13-cv-01462-AWI-MJS Document 34 Filed 12/02/13 Page 3 of 3