David Arkeem Evans v. Diaz, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denied without prejudice Plaintiff David Arkeen Evans’s motion for appointment of counsel in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The court found no exceptional circumstances, noting that the case remained pending, no trial had been set, Plaintiff was not proceeding in forma pauperis, and he appeared able to articulate his claims pro se.

Holdings

1. A plaintiff proceeding pro se in a civil-rights action does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel.
2. The court may not require an attorney to represent a civil litigant under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), but it may request voluntary assistance in exceptional circumstances.
3. Plaintiff did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of counsel.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiff established exceptional circumstances warranting a court request for voluntary appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).
2. Whether plaintiff's pro se status, limited legal experience, restricted access to legal research materials, and anticipated trial justified appointment of counsel.

Disposition

other