Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01530/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01530-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Karen Berard
Defendant
Dale L. Cottrell
Plaintiff
Rajib Das
Defendant
Angelica Duenas
Defendant
Felix Igbinosa
Defendant
C. Lackey
Defendant
Ifeoma Ogbuehi
Defendant
Miran Park
Defendant

Document Text:

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Dale L. Cottrell is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On May 11, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for the appointment of counsel. There is no 

constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th 

Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require any 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). 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 

“exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on the 

DALE L. COTTRELL,

 Plaintiff,

v.

FELIX IGBINOSA, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-01530-LJO-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE

[ECF No. 38]

Case 1:13-cv-01530-LJO-SAB Document 39 Filed 05/12/15 Page 1 of 3
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

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). 

This action is proceeding against Defendants C. Lackey, Karen Berard, Ifeoma Ogbuehi, Rajib 

Das, Miran Park, Angelica Duenas, and Felix Igbinosa for deliberate indifference to a serious medical 

need in violation of the Eighth Amendment. On April 15, 2015, Defendants Berard, Das, Duenas, 

Igbinosa, and Ogbeuhi filed an answer to the complaint.1 On April 16, 2015, the Court issued the 

discovery and scheduling order. 

Plaintiff seeks the appointment of counsel because he is indigent, the issues involved in the 

case are complex, medical experts will be necessary for depositions and trial proceedings, and he is 

layman at law. 

In the present case, the Court does find that neither the interests of justice nor exceptional 

circumstances warrant appointment of counsel at this time. LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th 

Cir. 1987); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). 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. The facts alleged appear straightforward and unlikely to 

involve extensive investigation and discovery. At this early stage in the proceedings, the court cannot 

make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits, and based on a review of the 

record in this case, the Court does not find that plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id.

Plaintiff is proceeding on a claim of deliberate indifference and the legal issues present in this action 

are not complex, and Plaintiff has thoroughly set forth his allegations and filed appropriate motions for 

relief in this action. 

While a pro se litigant may be better served with the assistance of counsel, so long as a pro se 

litigant, such as Plaintiff in this instance, is able to “articulate his claims against the relative 

complexity of the matter,” the “exceptional circumstances” which might require the appointment of 

counsel do not exist. Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d at 1525 (finding no abuse of discretion under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e) when district court denied appointment of counsel despite fact that pro se prisoner 

 

1

Defendants Lackey and Park have not yet been served with process. 

Case 1:13-cv-01530-LJO-SAB Document 39 Filed 05/12/15 Page 2 of 3
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

“may well have fared better-particularly in the realm of discovery and the securing of expert 

testimony.”) Plaintiff’s lack of education, lack of resources, and lack of certain legal knowledge, does 

not demonstrate exceptional circumstances. This Court is faced with cases brought by prisoners in 

similar circumstances almost daily. Accordingly, Plaintiff motion for appointment of counsel is 

DENIED, without prejudice. 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 12, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01530-LJO-SAB Document 39 Filed 05/12/15 Page 3 of 3