Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01558/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01558-10/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Forrest Kendrid
Plaintiff
E. Oguntuase
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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FORREST KENDRID,

Plaintiff,

v.

E. OGUNTUASE,

Defendant.

No. 2:21-cv-01558-WBS-JDP (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO APPOINT COUNSEL

ECF No. 50

Plaintiff is a state inmate proceeding without counsel in this civil rights action brought 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff moves for the appointment of counsel. ECF No. 50. 

Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, see Rand 

v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court lacks the authority to require an 

attorney to represent plaintiff. See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 

298 (1989). The court can request the voluntary assistance of counsel. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(1) (“The court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford 

counsel”); Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. But without a means to compensate counsel, the court will 

seek volunteer counsel only in exceptional circumstances. In determining whether such 

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.” Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

Case 2:21-cv-01558-WBS-JDP Document 51 Filed 11/17/23 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

Plaintiff moves for the appointment of counsel because he has a disability that makes it 

difficult for him to read, write, and understand material pertaining to his case. ECF No. 50 at 1. 

Plaintiff’s reason for requesting the appointment of counsel “are typical of almost every pro se

prisoner civil rights plaintiff and alone” are insufficient to satisfy the “exceptional circumstances” 

standard required to justify appointment of counsel. See Thompson v. Paramo, No. 16cv951-

MMA (BGS), 2018 WL 4357993, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2018); Jones v. Kuppinger, 2:13-cv451-WBS (AC), 2015 WL 5522290, at *3-4 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2015) (“Circumstances common 

to most prisoners, such as a deficient general education, lack of knowledge of the law, mental 

illness and disability, do not in themselves establish exceptional circumstances warranting 

appointment of voluntary civil counsel.”). Moreover, the allegations in the complaint are not 

exceptionally complicated, plaintiff has successfully submitted several motions and pleadings 

without the assistance of counsel, and he has not demonstrated that he is likely to succeed on the 

merits. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of 

counsel, ECF No. 50, is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 16, 2023 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:21-cv-01558-WBS-JDP Document 51 Filed 11/17/23 Page 2 of 2