Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-02070/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-02070-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Victory Ilsung
Plaintiff
Robert Mobert
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

VICTORY ILSUNG,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

ROBERT MOBERT, 

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:10-cv-02070-AWI-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

(ECF No. 45)

Plaintiff Victory Ilsung, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 

filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter proceeds on retaliation 

and medical indifference claims against Defendant Mobert.

On March 26, 2013, Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel was denied without 

prejudice. (ECF No. 35.) On February 14, 2014, Plaintiff sought reconsideration and/or 

appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 45.) On February 19, 2014, the Court denied 

reconsideration of the March 26, 2013 order. (ECF No. 46.) 

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s February 14, 2014 motion for appointment of counsel. 

He asserts counsel should be appointed because: he lacks funds to retain private counsel, 

the case is complex and requires investigation and discovery, he has limited education and 

Case 1:10-cv-02070-AWI-MJS Document 51 Filed 05/06/14 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

knowledge of the law and library access, trial will likely involve conflicting evidence, and he 

may give testimony which might later be used against him in a criminal prosecution. 

I. LEGAL STANDARD

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

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 

him 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).”).

II. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL DENIED

There are not exceptional circumstances supporting appointment of counsel. The 

Court cannot make a determination at this stage of the litigation that Plaintiff is likely to 

Case 1:10-cv-02070-AWI-MJS Document 51 Filed 05/06/14 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

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. 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 relating to retaliation and medical indifference 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, Plaintiff makes no showing that he has exhausted diligent efforts to secure 

counsel. His lack of funds alone does not demonstrate that efforts to secure counsel 

necessarily would be futile.1

III. ORDER

For the reasons stated, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for 

appointment of counsel (ECF No. 45) is DENIED, without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 6, 2014 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1

See e.g., Thornton v. Schwarzenegger, 2011 WL 90320, *3–4 (S.D. Cal. January 11, 2011) (cases cited).

Case 1:10-cv-02070-AWI-MJS Document 51 Filed 05/06/14 Page 3 of 3