Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00748/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00748-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Ray Dynes
Plaintiff
Fresno County Detention Center Maintenance Staff
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

JOHN RAY DYNES,

Plaintiff,

vs.

FRESNO COUNTY DETENTION CENTER

MAINTENANCE STAFF,

Defendants. 

________________________________/

1:10-cv-00748-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

( #7)

On May 13, 2010, 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 “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 claims pro se in light of

Case 1:10-cv-00748-MJS Document 10 Filed 05/28/10 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-

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. 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 is unable to 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: May 27, 2010 /s/Michael J. Seng 

ci4d6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00748-MJS Document 10 Filed 05/28/10 Page 2 of 2