Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01074/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01074-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gregory L. Fletcher
Plaintiff
Stu Sherman
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

GREGORY L. FLETCHER,

Plaintiff,

v.

STU SHERMAN,

Defendant.

1:18-cv-01074-DAD-GSA (PC) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

(Document #13)

On February 12, 2020, 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 the 

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

Case 1:18-cv-01074-DAD-GSA Document 14 Filed 02/13/20 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

In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff 

states that he cannot afford to hire a lawyer; he has severe arthritis and other health concerns;

imprisonment will limit his ability to litigate this case; and he only has a third-grade education. While 

these conditions make litigation challenging, none of them make this case exceptional under the Ninth 

Circuit’s standards discussed above.

At this early stage in the proceedings, the court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is 

likely to succeed on the merits. Payment of the filing fee for this case has not been resolved, and 

Plaintiff’s 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 issues in this case -- whether Plaintiff’s constitutional rights or his rights under the 

Americans with Disabilities Act were violated when he was denied a job at the prison -- do not appear 

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, plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY 

DENIED, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 13, 2020 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-01074-DAD-GSA Document 14 Filed 02/13/20 Page 2 of 2