Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00289/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00289-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Roberto Herrera
Plaintiff
Rouch
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERTO HERRERA,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROUCH,

Defendant.

CASE No. 1:13-cv-00289-LJO-MJS

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(ECF No. 21)

Plaintiff Roberto Herrera is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) On 

September 20, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel.

1

 (ECF 

No. 21.)

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 en banc on 

other grounds, 154 F.3d 952, 954 n. 1 (9th Cir. 1998)), 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 (1989).

In certain exceptional circumstances the Court may request the voluntary 

 

1 Plaintiff concurrently filed a request for a preliminary injunction. That request is addressed in a separate 

order.

Case 1:13-cv-00289-LJO-MJS Document 22 Filed 10/10/13 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

assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 

However, 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 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 does 

not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id.

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel is 

DENIED, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 10, 2013 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

ci4d6

Case 1:13-cv-00289-LJO-MJS Document 22 Filed 10/10/13 Page 2 of 2