Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-02070/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-02070-2/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Victory Ilsung,

Plaintiff,

v.

Robert Mobert,

Defendant.

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

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(ECF No. 34)

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

filed this civil rights action on November 8, 2010 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 

1.) The Court screened the First Amended Complaint and ordered service as to cognizable 

claims for First Amendment retaliation and Eighth Amendment medical indifference against 

Defendant Mobert. (ECF No. 14.) On August 3, 2012, Defendant Mobert filed a Motion to 

Dismiss the Eighth Amendment claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) on grounds Plaintiff 

failed to exhaust administrative remedies. (ECF No. 23.) The Court adopted Findings and 

Recommendations denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss on March 22, 2013. (ECF No. 

33.) 

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion Requesting Appointed Attorney. (ECF 

No. 34.)

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 

Case 1:10-cv-02070-AWI-MJS Document 35 Filed 03/26/13 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

F.3d 952, 954 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998), and the Court can not 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). 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 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. 

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. Further, Defendant Mobert has not yet 

filed a response. The Court can not make a determination at this early stage of the litigation 

that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. The retaliation and medical indifference

claims in issue does not appear to be novel or unduly complex. The facts alleged to date 

appear straightforward and unlikely to involve extensive investigation and discovery.

Case 1:10-cv-02070-AWI-MJS Document 35 Filed 03/26/13 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

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. At present, the Court is 

unable to find that, even considering Plaintiff’s diabetic condition and dialysis treatments, 

he is unable adequately to articulate his claims. 

Finally, nothing suggests that Plaintiff has made diligent effort to secure counsel.1 

Plaintiff’s lack of funds alone does not necessarily mean efforts to secure counsel would be 

futile.

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion Requesting Appointed Attorney (ECF 

No. 34) is HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 25, 2013 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC _Signature- END:

12eob4

 

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 35 Filed 03/26/13 Page 3 of 3