Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01682/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01682-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Youssef Shapour
Plaintiff
State of California
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

This action now proceeds on Plaintiff Youssef Shapour’s (“Plaintiff”) original Complaint, 

filed on October 18, 2013, against Defendant the State of California Department of Transportation

(“Defendant”) for discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 USC § 

2000e. (Doc. 1). On October 23, 2013, Plaintiff filed the instant motion seeking the appointment of 

counsel. (Doc. 6). 

REQUEST FOR 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Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds on reh’g en banc, 

154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc) 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 

YOUSSEF SHAPOUR,

 Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Department of 

Transportation 

 Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: No. 1:13-cv-1682 AWI-BAM 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST 

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Case 1:13-cv-01682-BAM Document 10 Filed 12/11/13 Page 1 of 2
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

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 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 

employment discrimination cases almost daily. Although Plaintiff is concerned about his ability to 

litigate this matter, this is not sufficient basis for the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff is required by 

the Local Rules to notify the court and opposing parties of his current address to ensure that he 

receives service of all orders and papers in this matter. Local Rule 183(b). 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. Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 

For these reasons, Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel shall be denied without 

prejudice. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of 

counsel is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 10, 2013 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01682-BAM Document 10 Filed 12/11/13 Page 2 of 2