Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01421/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01421-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Ryan Eha
Plaintiff
North Kern State Prison
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

DAVID RYAN EHA,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

NORTH KERN STATE PRISON,

 Defendant.

1:15-cv-01421-LJO-EPG-PC

 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE

(ECF No. 10.)

David Ryan Eha (“Plaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on September 

21, 2015. (ECF No. 1.) On October 28, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment 

of counsel. (ECF No. 10.)

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 

Case 1:15-cv-01421-LJO-EPG Document 14 Filed 11/16/15 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

“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. The 

fact that Plaintiff is indigent and unable to afford counsel does not make Plaintiff’s case 

exceptional. At this early stage of the proceedings, Plaintiff’s Complaint awaits the Court’s 

requisite screening, and therefore the Court has not yet found any cognizable claims upon 

which Plaintiff may proceed. Thus, the Court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is 

likely to succeed on the merits. Moreover, based on a review of the Complaint, the Court finds 

that Plaintiff can adequately articulate his claims.1 Thus, the Court does not find the required 

exceptional circumstances, and 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 the 

appointment of counsel is DENIED, without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 16, 2015 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1

Plaintiff’s Complaint arises from his allegations that he has not received his allotment of 

indigent envelopes in a timely manner. 

Case 1:15-cv-01421-LJO-EPG Document 14 Filed 11/16/15 Page 2 of 2