Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-02038/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-02038-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
Defendant
David Vera Sandoval
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

DAVID VERA SANDOVAL,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS AND 

REHABILITATION,

Defendant.

1:14-cv-02038-BAM (PC) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

(ECF No. 3)

Plaintiff David Vera Sandoval (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 22, 2014, 

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 

Case 1:14-cv-02038-BAM Document 6 Filed 01/05/15 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

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

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. Further, 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.

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

DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 5, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-02038-BAM Document 6 Filed 01/05/15 Page 2 of 2