Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01103/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01103-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dr. Akanno
Defendant
Tristan D. Allan
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

TRISTAN D. ALLAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. AKANNO,

Defendant.

1:12-cv-01103-AWI-BAM (PC) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

(ECF No. 31)

Plaintiff Tristan D. Allan (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

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

Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendant Akanno for deliberate indifference to medical needs in 

violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. A jury trial is scheduled 

for June 20, 2015.

On March 2, 2015, Plaintiff filed the instant 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. 

Case 1:12-cv-01103-AWI-BAM Document 32 Filed 03/04/15 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

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).

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. This court is faced with 

similar cases almost daily from indigent prisoners litigating claims of deliberate indifference to 

serious medical needs, many of which involve expert testimony. Although this matter is 

proceeding to trial, the court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the 

merits. The merits of Plaintiff’s claims were not tested by way of a summary judgment motion. 

Moreover, based on a review of the record in this case, the court does not find that Plaintiff 

cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id. 

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

DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 4, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01103-AWI-BAM Document 32 Filed 03/04/15 Page 2 of 2