Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01752/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01752-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
Defendant
James Hill
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

JAMES HILL,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS and REHABILITATION,

Defendant.

1:13-cv-001752-GSA (PC) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

(Document# 19)

On November 22, 2013, 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 1:13-cv-01752-GSA Document 20 Filed 12/03/13 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. 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 awaits the court=s screening required under 28 U.S.C. 

1915. Thus, to date the Court has not found any cognizable claims in plaintiff=s complaint for 

which to initiate service of process, and no other parties have yet appeared. The legal issue in this 

case B whether defendants denied plaintiff adequate medical care B is not complex, and this court 

is faced with similar cases almost daily. Moreover, based on a review of the record in this case, 

the court does not find that plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Therefore, plaintiff=s 

motion shall be denied without prejudice to renewal of the motion 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: December 3, 2013 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01752-GSA Document 20 Filed 12/03/13 Page 2 of 2