Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01822/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01822-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charles A. Edwards
Plaintiff
D. Smith
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

CHARLES A. EDWARDS,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

D. SMITH, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:20-cv-01822-GSA-PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

(ECF No. 8.)

On March 23, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. (ECF 

No. 8.) 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 § 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 

Case 1:20-cv-01822-JLT-GSA Document 12 Filed 05/10/22 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

complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

Plaintiff seeks counsel because he suffers from schizophrenia and a disability that makes 

it difficult for him to read, write, and/or understand material regarding his case. This does not 

make Plaintiff’s case exceptional under the law. At this early stage in the proceedings, the court 

cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. Plaintiff’s First 

Amended Complaint awaits the court’s screening required under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Thus, to date 

the court has not found any cognizable claims in Plaintiff’s complaint for which to initiate service 

of process, and no other parties have yet appeared. The legal issue in this case, whether 

defendants used excessive force against Plaintiff, is not complex. Moreover, based on a review 

of the record in this case, the court finds that Plaintiff can adequately articulate his claims. 

Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion shall be denied, without prejudice to renewal of the motion at a later 

stage of the proceedings..

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for 

appointment of counsel, filed on March 23, 2022, is denied without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 9, 2022 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-01822-JLT-GSA Document 12 Filed 05/10/22 Page 2 of 2