Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jason Marta, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. The operative claim is against CDCR for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the case was set for a jury trial on March 23, 2027, before United States District Judge Kirk E. Sherriff. The order under review concerns only a pretrial motion for appointment of counsel, not the merits of the ADA claim.
On November 4, 2026, Marta moved for appointment of counsel under ECF No. 88. He said he lacked the financial resources to retain counsel and lacked sufficient legal and medical knowledge to articulate the complex issues in the action. Although CDCR’s response deadline had not yet expired, the court found a response unnecessary and deemed the motion submitted under Local Rule 230(l). The court then evaluated the request under the standards governing volunteer counsel for indigent prisoner litigants.
The Court’s Holding
The court first explained that Marta has no constitutional right to appointed counsel in this civil action, citing Rand v. Rowland, and that the court cannot require an attorney to represent him under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), citing Mallard. The court may, however, request voluntary assistance of counsel in certain exceptional circumstances. The court stated that, without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, it will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases.
Applying Rand, the court stated that exceptional circumstances require evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits and the plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues. The court found those exceptional circumstances absent here. Even assuming Marta made serious allegations that would entitle him to relief if proved, the court said his case was not exceptional because it is faced almost daily with similar prisoner cases brought by people lacking legal and medical knowledge who must litigate without counsel.
The court also said that, at this stage, it could not determine whether Marta was likely to succeed on the merits. Although the complaint was screened and stated a cognizable claim, and the claim survived summary judgment, that did not necessarily mean the claim was likely to succeed. Finally, based on its review of the record, the court did not find that Marta cannot adequately articulate his claims. Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Frank J. Singer denied the motion for appointment of counsel without prejudice, leaving the ADA claim itself for the scheduled trial proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- A prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis has no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a § 1983 civil rights action.
- Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), a court cannot compel an attorney to represent an indigent civil plaintiff, though it may seek volunteer counsel in exceptional circumstances.
- Serious allegations alone did not make Marta’s case exceptional where similar prisoner cases routinely proceed without counsel.
- Surviving complaint screening and summary judgment did not establish that Marta was likely to succeed on the merits at this stage.
- The denial was expressly without prejudice and did not adjudicate the underlying Americans with Disabilities Act claim or disturb the March 23, 2027 jury-trial setting.
Why It Matters
The order shows that the exceptional-circumstances inquiry for volunteer counsel is separate from the procedural survival of a claim. A complaint can state a cognizable claim and survive summary judgment while the court still cannot find a likelihood of success sufficient to justify seeking volunteer counsel. The court’s reasoning emphasizes that screening and summary-judgment rulings address different questions from the likelihood-of-success factor under Rand.
The decision also distinguishes financial need and unfamiliarity with legal or medical issues from a demonstrated inability to present the case. Because the denial was without prejudice, Marta may renew the request if later circumstances support exceptional circumstances, but the order itself resolved only the appointment motion and left the underlying ADA claim for the scheduled trial proceedings.