Jones v. Lowder, et al.

Filing 22

ORDER DENYING, without Prejudice, Plaintiff's 20 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 1/17/2018. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CLEVELAND JONES,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

v.
R. LOWDER, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18
19

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:16-cv-01911-AWI-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE,
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT
OF COUNSEL
[ECF No. 20]

Plaintiff Cleveland Jones is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, filed January 16,

20

2018. There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d

21

1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require any attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to

22

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490

23

U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the

24

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

25

Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek

26

volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether

27

“exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on the

28
1

1

merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the

2

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

3

In the present case, the Court does find that neither the interests of justice nor exceptional

4

circumstances warrant appointment of counsel at this time. LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th

5

Cir. 1987); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff seeks appointment of

6

counsel because of his mental health, need for staff assistance regarding administrative matters,

7

inability to possess large volumes of records and books in his cell, no access to traditional law library,

8

or any form of legal assistance. This action is proceeding against Defendant R. Lowder for violation

9

of the Equal Protection Clause, and the legal issues present in this action are not complex. Plaintiff

10

has thoroughly set forth his allegations in the complaint, responded to the Court’s orders, and filed

11

miscellaneous motions.
Circumstances common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law

12
13

library access, do not establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary

14

assistance of counsel. While a pro se litigant may be better served with the assistance of counsel, so

15

long as a pro se litigant, such as Plaintiff in this instance, is able to “articulate his claims against the

16

relative complexity of the matter,” the “exceptional circumstances” which might require the

17

appointment of counsel do not exist. Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d at 1525 (finding no abuse of

18

discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) when district court denied appointment of counsel despite fact

19

that pro se prisoner “may well have fared better-particularly in the realm of discovery and the securing

20

of expert testimony.”) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied, without

21

prejudice.

22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24

Dated:

25

January 17, 2018
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28
2